Subject: [dnsext] Results of WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-05

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:16:21 -0400

Dear colleagues,

The working group last call for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-05
completed.  There was adequate review by the Working Group to satisfy
our convention that at least five people need to review a document,
and express support, in order that the document be sent to the IESG.
Some actions are required before the document can proceed.  I express
my apologies to the Working Group and to the ever-patient draft editor
for the delay in getting this report back to the Working Group since
the Last Call ended.

The actions are these:

1.  The reference to [SCHNEIER-1996] will be removed.

2.  The key size reference to RFC 4641 will be removed.

3.  A WG participant raised a concern about a sentence in §4.1.  The
editor will change the sentence as follows:

   Apart from the restrictions specified in section 2, this document            
   will not specify what size of keys to use.  That is an operational           
   issue and depends largely on the environment and intended use.

4.  The reference to RFC 3447 will be changed to an Informational
reference.

5.  A large number of nits will be addressed.

6.  There is an ambiguity in the algorithm in §3.  The editor proposes
to alter the section, rewording it this way:

    The FF octet MUST be repeated the exact number of times so that
    the total length of the concatenated term in parentheses equals
    the length of the modulus of the signer's public key ("n").

If you are among those who noted this ambiguity, please review that
proposed change and respond if you object: we will take silence on
this matter to indicate agreement with the proposal.

7.  On the basis of the discussion during WGLC, and considerations of
the effects of the change, the Chairs have directed the editor to
remove the requirement that implementations must also support NSEC3.
This means restoring the algorithm aliases; the result will be
approximately the request to IANA we see in (e.g.) the -02 draft, §5.
While we appreciate the advantages of tidiness and of promoting the
implementation of NSEC3, we have concluded that the cost is too great,
because it prevents those implementations not supporting NSEC3 from
supporting SHA-2 as well.

The editor has agreed to make all these changes, and post a -06 for
final consideration.  One week after -06 becomes available, unless
anyone objects to specific changes that were made in response to the
WGLC (or, of course, comes up with a complete showstopper that has
never been raised), we'll send the document to the IESG.  

Thanks for your continued work in reviewing documents of the Working
Group.

Best regards,

Andrew (for the Chairs)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:54:30 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> never been raised), we'll send the document to the IESG.  

I note that the -06 draft has been posted, so please check it and send
any remarks you may have within the next week.

Best regards,

Andrew