Subject: Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:05:25 +0100 (MEZ)

WGLC comments:  I have read, and support publication of,
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06 as a Standards Track RFC.

A few details that could be addressed during RFC Editor processing
(or in a new draft version in case that would become necessary for
other reasons):

(1)  Abstract

s/which lists/that lists/

(2)  Section 1, 1st para

Early this year, this WG has defined which set of documents shall
be regarded as comprising the current "DNSSEC specification", i.e.
what needs to be implemented in any DNSSEC implementation intended
for general-purpose use on the Internet.  The basic idea was to
"market" the full document set as an indivisible entity, to further
interoperability in production environments.
The full basic DNSSEC document set was agreed to be comprised of
RFCs 4033, 4034, 4035, 4509, 5155, and 5702  (i.e., this meant the
addition of SHA-2 hashes and NSEC3 to the initial DNSSECbis document
triple).

This decision has been recorded in RFC 5936 (AXFR), since it's been
faster than draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates, which in turn says:

|  [RFC5155] should be considered part of the DNS Security Document
|  Family as described by [RFC4033], Section 10.

   [...]

|  Both [RFC4509] and [RFC5702] should also be considered part of the
|  DNS Security Document Family as described by [RFC4033], Section 10.

Once published, according to the consensus of the WG, the published
dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates document will be added to this list for
purposes of "external communication".

For overall consistency in the messages this WG sends out, I therefore
suggest to add the latter three RFCs: 4509, 5155, and 5702, to the
list of citations in the first sentence of Section 1.

(3)  Section 2.2

According to Section 2.1, the entry for alg.#4 is changed to
"Reserved until 2020".
The new registry layout presented in Section 2.2 preserves the
previously (pre-)assigned Mnemonic (3rd table column) "ECC" for
this entry.

For consistency with the two other entries now being reserved
in the same way, I suggest to also drop this legacy mnemonic.

(This doesn't mean that I suggest to reuse that mnemonic in the
future for any assignment; "ECC" simply is much too unspecific
to make proper sense.  If really deemed necessary, IANA could be
instructed to not assign that mnemonic in the future.)

(4)  Section 3, 2nd para

For consistency with RFC 6014 (as indicated by Andrew, still referred
to as [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation] in this draft), the now
accepted (thanks Paul for the struggle!), generic, simplified URL for
the IANA DNSSEC registry should be used:
  <http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers>

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:22:48 -0500

> draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06 as a Standards Track RFC.

Which reminds me: I didn't note this in my WGLC message, but we expect
to send this document up the chain for the Standards Track.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.