Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-
review-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-genart-lc-dupont-2012-07-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-07-11
Requested 2012-06-28
Authors Scott Rose
I-D last updated 2012-07-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Charlie Kaufman
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Completed 2012-07-09
review-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-genart-lc-dupont-2012-07-09-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120704
IETF LC End Date: 20120711
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None (but I have a private question)

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 2 and 2.1 (title) page 3: my (US) dictionary prefers
  Assignement -> Assignment

 - 2.1 page 3: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 2.1 page 3: precieved -> percieved

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr

PS: I have a private (i.e., not as a gen-art reviewer) question: what is
the exact meaning of "MUST NOT IMPLEMENT"? Is it for instance acceptable
to disable by default RSAMD5 in a current implementation to keep it
"compliant"?