On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> 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'. > A new version was submitted (-11), but still says: " The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its Status changed to '-'." The registry is here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml '-' to me implies that the codepoint hasn't been used, but I don't actually know if that's true. I think "DEPRECATED" is better, but perhaps I'm wrong (anyone seeing '-' will presumably do read the referenced RFC, so…_) I will ask the IANA which they think is best / clearest… W > W > > >> --Paul Hoffman >> >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
