Hi Philip,
See [ST] below.
On 1/16/25, 8:30 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote:
> b) Is step 3b (a short RFC that points to a specific version of an
> expired draft) acceptable? If not, what would be needed, given that
> the original author didn't want to progress their document?
Whe
Tim Wicinski writes:
> For draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost and
> draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1, there were some editorial changes the
> authors have made, but not yet published. Once they publish the
> updated versions we can move them forward.
I've updated the version numbers and published
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-02.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title: Deprecate usage of ECC-GOST within DNSSEC
Authors: Wes Hardaker
Warren Kumari
Name:draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-e
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-02.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title: Deprecating the use of SHA-1 in DNSSEC signature algorithms
Authors: Wes Hardaker
Warren Kumari
Name:draft-ietf-dn
All
The Working Group Last Call for these three documents is wrapping up
(though my email seemed to miss the date).
For draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost and draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1,
there were some editorial changes the authors have made, but not yet
published. Once they publish the upda
Hi Nicolai,
Thanks for the review!
We've addressed the nits, but will postpone submitting a new revision for now
because changes are very minor.
You can find the diff here:
https://github.com/peterthomassen/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify/commit/7f06bc5531449d5d24aaf081e5d0faca4c452fce
C
Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann
Review result: Ready with Nits
Hi,
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of
