Hi,
On 03/04/2025, 22:08, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote:
Hi Tobias,
On 03-Apr-25 21:05, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
> Moin,
>> Good point. So maybe we do need a stand-alone BCP for this? Or
>> perhaps it should be added to section 7 of draft-ietf-6man-rfc8504-
>> bis?
>>
>> "IPv6 addresses for DNS servers
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1
Title: Deprecating the use of SHA-1 in DNSSEC signature algorithms
Reviewer: Florian Obser
Review result: Ready
My comments from the dnsdir review for -03 have been addressed.
This document is ready.
___
DNSOP m
Hi,
On 04/04/2025, 10:29, "Tobias Fiebig" wrote:
Moin,
On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 08:13 +, Tim Chown wrote:
> The general principle in 8504 is to be a summary of requirements and
> to point to other RFCs that define them, so doing both is perfectly
> viable.
Fair point; Question is, though, if
On 04/04/2025 04.18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
I'd like to suggest a change in section 4:
I agree. And/or it might reference the algorithm table extended in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/
(RECOMMENDED in column "use for DNSSEC signing")
--Vladimir | knot-resolve
Dear authors, dear shepherd, DNSOP WG,
As Mohamed ‘Med’ Boucadair is now the responsible AD for DNSOP, he passed me
the role of responsible AD for this I-D :-) Therefore, here is my own AD
review. Before proceeding with the publication process (IETF Last Call and the
IESG evaluation), I request
I'd also add a date into the text for this suggestion - which I
completely agree with... then review it in several years from now.
On 2025/04/04 09:36, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
On 04/04/2025 04.18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
I'd like to suggest a change in section 4:
I agree. And/or it might refer
Moin,
On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 08:13 +, Tim Chown wrote:
> The general principle in 8504 is to be a summary of requirements and
> to point to other RFCs that define them, so doing both is perfectly
> viable.
Fair point; Question is, though, if one would want to basically create
a dependency for
