Subject: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:30:51 -0500

Dear colleagues,

We noted in our report from the chairs around the time of IETF 79 that
we'd soon start a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06.  Only 8 days late, this
message is in fact initiating that LC.

We hereby commence a Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06 ending 2011-12-03 at 22:00
UTC.  Please review the document for correctness and clarity, and send
to the list any comments you might have.  If you have no comments but
support the document being published, we ask that you also send that
information to the list.  Finally, if you read the document and do not
support its publication, that is also information we would appreciate
receiving on list.

There is one nit in the document you may overlook in your review:
there is a reference to ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation, but that is
now available as RFC 6014.  The reference will be updated in the next
revision.

Under the conventions adopted by DNSEXT, the document needs at least
five reviewers to say that they have read the document, and that they
support its publication.  This is a short document that, in my
personal view, makes the IANA registry for Domain Name System Security
(DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers more useful to the Internet protocols
community.  I urge participants in the working group to review the
document so that we can proceed with the next steps in its
publication.  If you are a new participant here and are looking for
something with which to get your feet wet, this is an excellent
document to start with.

Best regards,

Andrew (document shepherd)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:45:01 -0400

I have reviewed this document, have no comments, and support the
document being published.

Brian Dickson

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:17:05 +0000

Andrew,

I gave the draft a quick read.

Section 2.1 states:

   The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 and DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 are set to
   RECOMMENDED and OPTIONAL respectively.

However, the status column for DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 in the table in section 2.2 is blank.

Also the status column for some other algorithms (Diffie-Hellman, DSA/SHA-1, GOST R) are also blank and the document does not provide any advice on how a blank status column entry should be interpreted.

Ben