DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update-04

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update-03 and has
the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
action which IANA must complete.

This document updates a set of Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm
Numbers registry entries as given in Section 2.2 of the approved document. The
changes include moving three registry entries to "Reserved" and updating the
reference list for entries.

The registry being modified is the Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm
Number registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers

A complete description of the changes to be made is in Section 2.2 of the
document. IANA notes that Section 2.2 documents the changes to the registry
and not the complete content of the revised registry. Where appropriate,
references will be updated to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that this is the only action that needs to be completed
by IANA upon approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry Updates'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-07-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
  cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
  DNS data.  The algorithms specified for use with DNSSEC are reflected
  in an IANA maintained registry.  This document presents a set of
  changes for some entries of the registry.

Note that this document responds to the objections raised against
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08; the earlier document was
split into this document and draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status.
This document specifies the changes to the registry that were
considered non-controversial during the review of
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-update-03
Template version 2012-02-24

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
  cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
  DNS data.  The algorithms specified for use with DNSSEC are reflected
  in an IANA maintained registry.  This document presents a set of
  changes for some entries of the registry.

Working Group Summary

    The changes this draft makes were originally bound up with some
    changes from a previous WG draft that was not published.  Some of
    the WG and, particularly, the IESG objected to the way that draft
    altered the registry; this draft and another one were the
    results.  This draft is not bound up with the other draft, and
    makes the uncontroversial changes to the registry.

Document Quality

    This draft makes no changes to any protocol, but cleans up a
    number of errors and omissions in the relevant registry.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

    Andrew Sullivan is the Document Shepherd.  Ralph Droms is the
    Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

    The shepherd reviewed the document thoroughly, comparing it to the
    existing registry and following the references.  All appears to be
    in order to him.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

    No.

    There have been few posts specifically about this draft.  The
    predecessor draft was reviewed adequately; the WG was consulted on
    breaking that draft into two (of which this forms one constituent
    part); and this resulting draft is consistent with the
    negotiations with the IESG.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

    The IESG should ascertain that this draft responds to the
    objections raised against
    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08 where they are relevant
    to the content of this draft.  As far as the shepherd understands
    things, it does, but it would be best if IESG members confirmed
    for themselves.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

    The WG has repeatedly lamented the state of the registry; this
    document fixes it.  The document has attracted a tiny number of
    comments, but the shepherd believes this is mostly because the
    predecessor draft had already addressed all the relevant issues.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

    No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

    Checked; no issues.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

    N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

    Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

    No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

    No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

    In effect, the entire document is instructions to IANA.  The
    registry is clearly identified.  The draft alters an existing
    registry and does not create a new one.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

    None.