The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8624, "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6227 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Mats Dufberg <[email protected]> Date Reported: 2020-07-10 Rejected by: Mohamed Boucadair (IESG) Section: 6 Original Text ------------- This document has no IANA actions. Corrected Text -------------- This document updates the IANA registry "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms". The registry has been updated by the following table from section 3.3: +--------+-----------------+-------------------+-------------------+ | Number | Mnemonics | DNSSEC Delegation | DNSSEC Validation | +--------+-----------------+-------------------+-------------------+ | 0 | NULL (CDS only) | MUST NOT [*] | MUST NOT [*] | | 1 | SHA-1 | MUST NOT | MUST | | 2 | SHA-256 | MUST | MUST | | 3 | GOST R 34.11-94 | MUST NOT | MAY | | 4 | SHA-384 | MAY | RECOMMENDED | +--------+-----------------+-------------------+-------------------+ [*] - This is a special type of CDS record signaling removal of DS at the parent in [RFC8078]. This document updates the IANA registry "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers". The registry has been updated by the following table from section 3.1: +--------+--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+ | Number | Mnemonics | DNSSEC Signing | DNSSEC Validation | +--------+--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+ | 1 | RSAMD5 | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | | 3 | DSA | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | | 5 | RSASHA1 | NOT RECOMMENDED | MUST | | 6 | DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | | 7 | RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 | NOT RECOMMENDED | MUST | | 8 | RSASHA256 | MUST | MUST | | 10 | RSASHA512 | NOT RECOMMENDED | MUST | | 12 | ECC-GOST | MUST NOT | MAY | | 13 | ECDSAP256SHA256 | MUST | MUST | | 14 | ECDSAP384SHA384 | MAY | RECOMMENDED | | 15 | ED25519 | RECOMMENDED | RECOMMENDED | | 16 | ED448 | MAY | RECOMMENDED | +--------+--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+ Notes ----- The document clearly has the intention to update the IANA registers, which is also stated in the document, but not in section 6 ("IANA Considerations"). --VERIFIER NOTES-- This document does not have the intention indicated in the erratum. Please see * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KXEI6RgnkN-S4uKL8DvhwGEsYrI/ * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GdpzvW7nqQ20BkKAchg74Wm398M/ FWIW, an update of RFC8624 is being finalized (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis) with a set of IANA actions to reflect the changes made in the bis itself, not the original RFC8624. -------------------------------------- RFC8624 (draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC Publication Date : June 2019 Author(s) : P. Wouters, O. Sury Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Domain Name System Operations Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
