Pete, thanks for your review. I think the whole point of chartering DCRUP was to produce documents such as this.
John, thanks for updating to reference RFC 8174, although I agree with Adam that the boilerplate should match 8174. Thanks, Alissa > On Jun 11, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-12 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2018-06-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-12 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 > > Summary: Nice simple document; Ready to go with nits. > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > None. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Nit: You should update the 2119 template to the 8174 template. > > Comment: If this kind of update is only going to happen every 6 or 7 years, I > guess it's fine, but all that this document really does is: - Trivially update > the ABNF - Add the algorithm to the registry - Update the normative > instructions to indicate that this new algorithm be used. That really could > have all be done with a registry update if the registry had a field for > normative instructions for use of the algorithm. I suppose it's no longer a > big > deal to add one more document to the eight-odd-thousand RFCs, but still... > > pr > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
