Subject: [DNSOP] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07

From: Peter Yee via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 02:16:26 -0700

Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2019-04-06
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-27
IESG Telechat date: 2019-04-11

Summary:  This document updates the DNSKEY, DS, and CDS algorithm
recommendations for use in DNSSEC based on current thinking in cryptography. 
This document is Ready with Nits as a Standards Track publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 2, Section 1.1, 2nd sentence: append a comma after "New".

Page 3, Section 1.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "recommendation cannot
be recommended" to "they cannot be recommended".

Page 3, Section 1.2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "recommendation" to
"intent".

Page 3, Section 1.2, 6th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "DNSKEY's" to
"DNSKEYs".

Page 3, Section 1.2, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence: indicate for clarity where
this marking will be done (essentially in a new version of this RFC).

Page 4, Section 1.3: In general, it would be nice if there were references in
the paragraphs following the table that point to the research that led to the
statements of strength or lack of strength of the algorithms.  Then again, this
isn't an academic paper, so references aren't strictly required either.  While
I mostly (but not completely) agree with the notes on the individual
algorithms, the average reader is left to take the statements as gospel rather
than being able to make an informed decision on the current state of
cryptography.

Page 4, Section 1.3, 3rd sentence: delete a redundant "from".

Page 5, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "cryptographics" to "cryptographic".

Page 5, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "that" to "who".

Page 5, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "GOST".  I'm generally
in favor of dropping the definite article of algorithm abbreviations.  If you
prefer not to do so, then use the definitive article consistently throughout
the document.

Page 5, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence: insert "the" before "deterministic".

Page 5, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".  Change
"ED448" to "Ed448".  Only make these two changes if you are referring to these
algorithms by the names given to them by their authors as opposed to the
mnemonics used within DNSSEC.  (This statement also applies to the Ed25519
comment below.) Insert "the" before "Edwards".

Page 5, 8th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "the" before "EdDSA".  Delete
"algorithm" after "EdDSA".

Page 5, 8th paragraph, 4th sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".

Page 6, Section 3.2, 2nd paragraph: insert "the" before "industry".  Change "to
move to" to "toward".  Delete "the" before "ECDSAP256SHA256 ".  Insert "the"
before "RECOMMENDED".  Change "RSA based" to "RSA-based".

Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 1st fragment: change "for" to "regarding". 
Append "are summarized in the table below." to the fragment.

Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append "recommendations"
after "These".

Page 6, 1st paragraph after table: append a period to the end of the sentence.

Page 6, 2nd paragraph after the table: append a period to the end of the
sentence.

Page 6, 4th paragraph after the table, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "GOST".

Page 6, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: change second "SHA-384" to "SHA-256".

Page 7, Section 3.4, 1st sentence: change the period at the end of a sentence
to a colon.  Join the following sentence to the first sentence after deleting
"The" before "SHA-256" and insert "the" before "RECOMMENDED".

Page 7, Section 4: this section has not been reviewed since it is to be deleted
by the RFC Editor prior to publication.

Page 8, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: consider appending "(in the
cryptographic sense)" after "broken".

Page 9, Section 8, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete an extraneous space
after "I.".  Append a comma after "Wouters".

Page 9, Section 8, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "Hoffman".  "Imminent"
in this sentence is probably not the word you want in document at time of
publication, although it's fine to prod the named individuals into submitted
input prior to publication.

Page 9, Section 8, 3rd paragraph: change "the daylight" to "light".

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:59:50 -0400

Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot and pointed to your review.

Alissa

> On Apr 6, 2019, at 5:16 AM, Peter Yee via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Michael Sinatra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:40:31 -0700

> input prior to publication.

As one of the "imminent" reviewers, I had previously had some concerns
around some of the language of the recommendations.  The latest few
drafts have settled those concerns, in concert with discussions with
other folks in the WG and outside.  I think the document is ready to go,
pending resolution of the various nits identified in the Genart review.

Michael Sinatra

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:11:47 -0400 (EDT)

> pending resolution of the various nits identified in the Genart review.

I will be working on all the input we got from the IESG and others. Thanks!

The word "imminent" was a joke in the draft, as it referred to people
who had promised to review the document upon adoption. A little nudge
to keep them honest. It should have been removed after the -00 version :)

Paul

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:45:18 -0400 (EDT)

> Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot and pointed to your review.

Indeed, thanks for the review Peter!

>> than being able to make an informed decision on the current state of

We did not want to add these to the document, in an attempt to keep the
document short and on topic.

>> comment below.) Insert "the" before "Edwards".

We are using the mnemonics, so I left these as is.

>> Page 5, 8th paragraph, 4th sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".

Same,

>> Append "are summarized in the table below." to the fragment.

I did not understand this change request?

Paul