Nabeel Cocker via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> writes: Hi Nabeel,
> Section 1.2, paragraph 3: > ========================== > "This will allow for deprecated algorithms to become used less and less over > time." > > Perhaps say it like "This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms > decreases over time." Done! > Section 2: > =========== > The last paragraph states > The "Implement for" column values are transcribed from > [RFC8624]. The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the > "implement for" ... > "implement for" has a lower case "i". Good catch, thanks. > Section 2: > ---------- > The last paragraph states: > The "Implement for" column values are transcribed from > [RFC8624]. The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the > "implement for" values since the general interpretation to date > indicates they have been treated as values for both "implementation" > and "use". We note that the values for "Implement for" and "Use for" > may diverge in the future. > > The above text indicates that the "Implement for" and "Use for" columns should > have identical values. However, when I look at Table 2, there are differences > between the values in the "Implement for" and the "Use for" for number 5, 7, > 8, > 10 and 13, For example, in number 5 where Use for DNSSEC Validation is > "RECOMMEND" but the Implement for DNSSEC Validation is "MUST" That's a good point and we don't discuss it in the document. The WG wished to not use MUST and MUST-NOT for the Use for column, so we replaced them with RECOMMENDED. As such, I added a sentence to the document that now says: Note that the "Use for" columns values use "RECOMMENDED" when the corresponding "Implement for" column is a "MUST" value. Does that work for you? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
