Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] We have updated the short title that spans the header of the PDF file to more closely match the document title. Please let us know of any objection. Original: MUST NOT DNSSEC with SHA-1 Current: Deprecating SHA-1 in DNSSEC Signature Algorithms --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!--[rfced] FYI: The acronyms appear to be mismatched with the expansions, so we switched them accordingly as shown below. Original: Since then, multiple other algorithms with stronger cryptographic strength have become widely available for DS records and for Resource Record Signature (DNSKEY) and DNS Public Key (RRSIG) records [RFC4034]. Current: Since then, multiple other algorithms with stronger cryptographic strength have become widely available for DS records and for Resource Record Signature (RRSIG) and DNS Public Key (DNSKEY) records [RFC4034]. --> 4) <!--[rfced] Should the names of the IANA registries be included here for clarity? Original: Operators are encouraged to consider switching to one of the recommended algorithms listed in the [DNSKEY-IANA] and [DS-IANA] tables, respectively. Perhaps: Operators are encouraged to consider switching to one of the recommended algorithms listed in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" [DNSKEY-IANA] and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries, respectively. --> 5) <!--[rfced] Is it correct that "DNSSEC Delegation" is uppercase and "DNSSEC signing" is lowercase in this sentence? In the companion document (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13 / RFC-to-be 9904), we note that "DNSSEC signers" is used in the running text and that "DNSSEC Delegation" is uppercase as it's only used in the name of the columns and IANA registry. Original: This document deprecates the use of RSASHA1 and RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 for DNSSEC Delegation and DNSSEC signing since these algorithms are no longer considered to be secure. --> 6) <!--[rfced] May we refer to the "tables" as "IANA registries" for clarity? Also, would "use" be clearer than "roll to"? Original: Zone owners currently making use of SHA-1 based algorithms should immediately roll to algorithms with stronger cryptographic algorithms, such as the recommended algorithms in the [DNSKEY-IANA] and [DS-IANA] tables. Perhaps: Zone owners currently making use of SHA-1-based algorithms should immediately use algorithms with stronger cryptographic algorithms, such as the recommended algorithms in the IANA registries [DNSKEY-IANA] [DS-IANA]. --> 7) <!--[rfced] Per IANA's protocol action note, should the IANA section be updated as follows to capture all of IANA's updates to the entries? Current: IANA has set the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation" column of the "Digest Algorithms" registry [DS-IANA] [RFC9904] to MUST NOT for SHA-1 (1) and has added this document as a reference to the entry. IANA has set the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" column of the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA] [RFC9904] to MUST NOT for the RSASHA1 (5) and RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 (7) algorithms and has added this document as a reference for these entries. All other columns should remain as currently specified. Perhaps: IANA has updated the SHA-1 (1) entry in the "Digest Algorithms" registry [DS-IANA] [RFC9904] as follows and has added this document as a reference for the entry: Value: 1 Description: SHA-1 Use for DNSSEC Delegation: MUST NOT Use for DNSSEC Validation: RECOMMENDED Implement for DNSSEC Delegation: MUST NOT Implement for DNSSEC Validation: MUST IANA has updated the RSASHA1 (5) and RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 (7) algorithm entries in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA] [RFC9904] as follows and has added this document as a reference for these entries: Number: 5 Description: RSA/SHA-1 Mnemonic: RSASHA1 Zone Signing: Y Trans. Sec.: Y Use for DNSSEC Signing: MUST NOT Use for DNSSEC Validation: RECOMMENDED Implement for DNSSEC Signing: NOT RECOMMENDED Implement for DNSSEC Validation: MUST Number: 7 Description: RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 Mnemonic: RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 Zone Signing: Y Trans. Sec.: Y Use for DNSSEC Signing: MUST NOT Use for DNSSEC Validation: RECOMMENDED Implement for DNSSEC Signing: NOT RECOMMENDED Implement for DNSSEC Validation: MUST --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFCs 4034 and 5155, please review the errata reported for each (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc4034> and <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5155>) and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of them are relevant to the content of this document. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. Karen Moore RFC Production Center On Oct 30, 2025, at 6:07 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive <[email protected]> wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/10/30 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * [email protected] (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9905 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9905 (draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-10) Title : Deprecating the use of SHA-1 in DNSSEC signature algorithms Author(s) : W. Hardaker, W. Kumari WG Chair(s) : Benno Overeinder, Ond?ej Surý Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
