Peter van Dijk via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes: > this is a DNSDIR review for draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1. > > This document appears to be mostly ready, but should perhaps (as also noted on > the mailing list) gain some visible relation to 8624(-bis) - unless the > argument is that the table in 8624 and its predecessors now lives at IANA and > history is tracked there, which would also make sense to me.
Yep, done. > Like the OPSDIR review flagged a problem in the DS update for IANA, the > request > to change [DNSKEY-IANA] requests "MUST NOT" while the table just has Y/N. > However, this appears to be covered by 8624-bis. This document should perhaps > also say Updating: 8624 (or -bis) as it updates the tables in there? Yep, also done. > Nits: > > > Since then, multiple other algorithms with stronger cryptographic strength > are now widely available for DS records and for DNSKEY and RRSIG records. > > "Since" and "are now"' feels incongruent. Perhaps "have become widely > available"? Changed, thanks! -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
