Hi, your response does not address my comments. 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. 2. What is requested from IANA. ths text you wrote and I copied is not a directive to IANA that is clear Roni
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:44 PM Макаренко Борис <bmakare...@tcinet.ru> wrote: > Hello, Roni! > > The old algorithms GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R > 34.11-2001 are considered obsolete. They are now replaced with GOST R > 34.10-2012 (digital signature) and GOST R 34.11-2012 (hash function). > Basically, the use of GOST algorithms in DNSSEC remains the same as > described in RFC 5933, but it is necessary to replace them with the new > ones. Old algorithms should not be used anymore. That's why we need to > obsolete RFC 5933. > > The section "IANA Considerations" proposes to assign numbers for GOST R > 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 in the IANA registries "DNS Security > Algorithm Numbers" ( > https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml) > and "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" ( > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml). > > Updates for RFC 8624 are described in the corresponding Section. > > -- > Boris > > > 13.10.2022 14:41, Roni Even via Datatracker writes: > > Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready > > 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> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: > draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review > Date: > 2022-10-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19 IESG Telechat date: Not > scheduled > for a telechat > > Summary: the document is almost ready for publication as > some type of > an RFC > > Major issues: The document is meant to be an > informational RFC > obsoleting RFC5933 a standard track RFC. why is this > change. > > Minor issues: > > the directive in the IANA consideration "The > entry for Value 3, > GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its Status > changed to '-'" > is not clear. there is no status field in the table as I > see in > RFC8624 section 3.3 > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
