I support this.
It sounds like future updates will be separate RFC documents, so it seems
odd to say 'this document' in 1.3. Perhaps "future documents" ? (I assume
this text was just copied from the previous version.)
1.3. Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels
...
This document attempts to identify and introduce those algorithms for
future mandatory-to-implement status. ...
Published algorithms are continuously subjected to
cryptographic attack and may become too weak, or even be completely
broken, before this document is updated.
Likewise in section 5
"new revisions of this document" could be "future documents"
Typographical cleanup:
In "3. DNS System Algorithm Numbers Column Values",
what was "table 1" should probably be "table 2" both in the text and
under the table.
The table heading two rows should probably be a single row? With
"Recommended for DNSSEC Signing"
in a single cell, and "Recommended for DNSSEC Validation" in a single cell.
And row 10 in the table appears to be split. "NOT RECOMMENDED" should
be a single cell.
In "4. DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
Algorithms Column Values"
It should be "table 3" in the text and under the table.
And the header for each page has a placeholder "title" instead of the
actual title.
--
Bob Harold
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:25 PM IETF Secretariat <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis in state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
> The document is available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
