Oops, and I forgot to add that ID-nit tool mentions that RFC 4033 and 4035 are listed as references but are not used. RFC 3174 should rather be informative than normative.
Additionally, Tim, as the shepherd, did you check whether all authors have agreed to be cited as authors ? (I guess they are, but let’s write it clearly in the shepherd’s write-up). Regards -éric From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 17 February 2025 at 16:02 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-02 Dear all, Thanks for your patience as I was on vacations when the publication of this I-D was requested. As the DNSOP responsible AD is also an author, I was selected as the acting responsible AD for this I-D. Hence, here are some comments that I want to be addressed (either by replying to me or by a revised I-D) before proceeding to the IETF Last Call. 1. The shepherd write-up is very terse , so far so good, but does not include a justification for the intended status (PS is the correct one of course) 2. Should this document update (in the meta-data, abstract, and introduction) RFCs 4034 and 5155 ? (I think so) 3. The phrasing of the last paragraph section 2 is weird with a mix of MUST and MAY 4. Section 5 "Digest Algorithms" registry, there is a Status field but no "Use for DNSSEC Delegation" field 5. Section 5 s/DNS Security Algorithm Numbers registry/“DNS Security Algorithm Numbers” registry/ and there is no “MUST NOT” value, just “N” Once the above points are addressed, then I will proceed with the publication of this important document. Regards, -éric
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
