(1) RFC is Standards Track, and this is the correct RFC type.
Technical Summary:
This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC
algorithms and resource records added to IANA registries. It updates
RFC 6014 to include hash algorithms for DS records and NSEC3
parameters. It also updates RFC 5155 and RFC 6014, which have
requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updates RFC 8624 to say that
algorithms that are described in RFCs that are not on standards track
are only at the "MAY" level of implementation recommendation. The
rationale for these changes is to bring the requirements for DS
records and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 in line with the
requirements for all other DNSSEC algorithms.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?
There was a lot of debate and discussion when it was first introduced. There
was a feeling that loosenign the requirements on adding new DNSSEC algorithms
would lead to algorithsm not geting implemented, algorithms designed around
nationalistic crypto, etc. This was resolved with some discussion.
Document Quality:
The IANA registries being updated in this document were previously updated.
During that process, there were a few updates that were overlooked. This
document attempts to bring all relevant registries in line.
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari
(3) The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document
for content as well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar).
The shepherd feels the document is ready for publication.
(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth
of the reviews.
(5) There is no need for broader review.
(6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd.
(7) No IPR disclosures
(8) There is no IPR
(9) The WG Consensus on this document is very solid.
(10) There has been no appeals.
(11) The following nits are raised, with our replies:
== Missing Reference: 'DNSKEY-IANA' is mentioned on line 114, but not
defined
That's in a quotation from another RFC. I do not want to misquote that RFC to
make idnits feel better.
== Missing Reference: 'DS-IANA' is mentioned on line 114, but not defined
That's in a quotation from another RFC. I do not want to misquote that RFC to
make idnits feel better.
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3658
(Obsoleted by RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035)
The reference is to the RFC that defined things that were in fact not obsolete:
DS records.
(12) No formal review needed
(13) All references have been identified as normative or informative.
(14) All normative references are in a clear state.
(15) There are no downward normative references
(16) This document will update RFCs 3658, 5155, 6014, 8624, and they are in
the abstract and the introduction.
(17) The document shepherd confirmed the consistency and references of the
IANA Considerations section are accurate.
(18) There are no new IANA registries, only updates to the "Domain Name System
Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure3 (NSEC3) Parameters" and the "Delegation Signer
(DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
Algorithms" registries.
(19) N/A
(20) No Yang Necessary