On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org>
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even <ron.even....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
>
> That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed
> its mind on what the status of this protocol should be. RFC 5933 describes
> a national standard that is thinly deployed. At the time, it was necessary
> to have the protocol on standards track; now it no longer is required.
>
> 2. What is requested from IANA. ths text you wrote and I copied is not a
> directive to IANA that is clear
>
> You are correct that the IANA Considerations section is quite unclear, and
> needs to be clarified before the IESG considers it.
>
That is a good point.
The document says:
---
This document updates the RFC IANA registry "Delegation Signer
(DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" by adding an entry for
the GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithm:
Value Algorithm
TBA2 GOST R 34.11-2012
The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its
Status changed to '-'.
----
The IANA registry being referenced "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource
Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" is here:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml
Setting this to '-' does seem incorrect, and from the text I think that it
should be either "MUST NOT" or, better yet (for clarity) "DEPRECATED" .
In addition, the IANA has a question:
------
"Third, in the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type
Digest Algorithms registry located at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/
a new registration will be made as follows:
Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: GOST R 34.11-2012
Status:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
IANA Question --> What should the entry for "Status" be for this new
registration?"
--------
I believe that it is clear (e.g: "6. Implementation Considerations
The support of this cryptographic suite in DNSSEC-aware systems is
OPTIONAL.") that it can only be OPTIONAL, but we need to clearly state
that.
So, I think a new version should be submitted saying:
----
This document updates the RFC IANA registry "Delegation Signer (DS)
Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" by adding an entry for
the GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithm:
Value: TBA2
Description: GOST R 34.11-2012
Status: OPTIONAL
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its
Status changed to 'DEPRECATED'.
W
> --Paul Hoffman
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
