Paul Wouters <[email protected]> writes: > first read of rfcdiff
So I actually took the draft from the github archive from both of you, not from the real 8624 xml (because I couldn't find it -- though I know it exists). > > guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes <xref target="RFC6944"/>. > > - no targets allowed in the abstract :) Buttttt.... you guys had one in the original draft! > - You removed RFC8174 from the 2119 text for no good reason :) Fixed (again, copied from source) > - SHA1 changed for validation from MUST to SHOULD NOT. This is the > discussion item for the WG :) Yep. It's a discussion place holder > - GOST to MUST NOT, ok but could add GOST 2012 as per > draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis Yep, I needed to find the reference for that. So thanks. > - You changed NOT RECOMMENDED terminology to SHOULD NOT (I think I > originally had that and Ondrey / the WG preferred NOT RECOMMENDED). > Either works for me. I actually had NOT RECOMMENDED originally, but people in the WG were suggesting SHOULD NOT in the comments so far so I switched it. I'm fine with either. > - NIT: The SHA-256 is RECOMMENDED [for the] DS and CDS algorithm[s]. All fixed. [and invited you to the github repo too] -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
