%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-05 instead of this revision. @techreport{ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-02, number = {draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-02}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/02/}, author = {Wes Hardaker and Warren "Ace" Kumari}, title = {{DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process}}, pagetotal = 12, year = 2024, month = oct, day = 18, abstract = {\textless{}EDITOR NOTE: This document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc) of any of the algorithms listed in {[}RFC8624{]}; that is the work of future documents. Instead, this document moves the canonical list of algorithms from {[}RFC8624{]} to an IANA registry. This is done for two reasons: 1) to allow the list to be updated more easily, and, much more importantly, 2) to allow the list to be more easily referenced.\textgreater{} The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non-existence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify both a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document updates {[}RFC8624{]} by moving the canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC from {[}RFC8624{]} to an IANA registry. Future extensions to this registry can be made under new, incremental update RFCs.}, }