Subject: [OPS-DIR]Re: For Nabeel Cocker, Opsdir Last Call review by 2025-04-21 assigned: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis
From: Nabeel Cocker <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 14:24:45 -0400
List-Id: Ops Directorate <ops-dir.ietf.org>

Hello,

I started my review of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/

I couple of quick comments:

Section 2:
The last paragraph states

 T

*he "Implement for" column values are transcribed from   [RFC8624].  The
"Use for" columns are set to the same values as the   "implement for" *values
since the general interpretation to date
   indicates they have been treated as values for both "implementation"
   and "use".  We note that the values for "Implement for" and "Use for"
   may diverge in the future

However, when I look at Table 2, there are differences between the values
in the "Implement for" and the "Use for" for number *5, 7, 8, 10 and 13*,
Example in number 5 where Use for DNSSEC Validation is "RECOMMEND" where as
the Implement for DNSSEC Validation is "MUST"

   |5 |RSASHA1        |NOT        |*RECOMMEND*ED|NOT        *|MUST    *   |
   |  |               |RECOMMENDED|           |RECOMMENDED|           |

Is this intentionaly? And if so, why (perhaps it is mentioned by I missed
the reasoning?

Many thanks
Nabeel

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 12:19 PM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Last Call review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis (no specific version)
> Deadline: 2025-04-21
> Pages: 14
> Requested by: Carlos Pignataro
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/reviewrequest/21828/login/
>
> Carlos Pignataro has assigned Nabeel Cocker as a reviewer for this
> document.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*Nabeel Cocker*
Senior Principal Architect, Global Telco Consulting Practice

M: +1-845-240-2587

Email: [email-masked]
<https://www.redhat.com/>