Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-03
review-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-03-artart-lc-leiba-2025-02-21-00

By themselves (without “RSA”), SHA-1, SHA-256 and other “SHA-nnn” designations
are hash (or digest) algorithms, not encryption algorithms, and we should
probably be more careful about what we call them. In this document it doesn’t
matter much, because this is just about depreciation and not documentation of
their use, but, still we have the opportunity to get it right.

So:
- “DNSSEC [RFC9364] originally made extensive use of SHA-1 as a cryptographic
verification algorithm” should say “cryptographic hash algorithm” - “Since
then, multiple other signing algorithms with stronger cryptographic strength”
can just say “other algorithms” - For “by guiding signers to choose a more
interoperable signing algorithm.” maybe just drop the word “signing” (and I
might say “secure and interoperable”)

Also, “algorithms with stronger cryptographic strengths” sounds odd.  Maybe
“algorithms with more cryptographic strength”?  Or maybe “stronger
cryptographic algorithms”?