Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-12
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-12-dnsdir-telechat-rose-2022-11-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2022-11-29
Requested 2022-10-25
Authors Boris Makarenko , Vasily Dolmatov
I-D last updated 2022-11-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Mohit Sethi (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -10 by Jim Reid (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -12 by Scott Rose (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -13 by Jim Reid (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott Rose
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/Fk7Xi7l7pVyFLH1e7wmV4ODwA2U
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-11-02
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-12-dnsdir-telechat-rose-2022-11-02-00
This Internet-Draft assigns a code point to a cryptographic algorithm for use
in DNSSEC and obsoletes a preceding algorithm. The DNS and DNSSEC protocols are
not changed in any way and in that sense of review the I-D is Ready.

The nits listed in the -10 review have been adequately addressed except for
minor wording in Section 3.1. The this version is easier to read and
understand. In Section 3.1, the opening sentence could be rewritten to improve
readability. from: "With the private key from this document, sign following
RRSet, consisting of one MX record:"  to: "Consider a given RRset consisting of
one MX RR to be signed with the private key described in Section 2.2 of this
document:"

The previous comment of it being on the Informational track still exists. I
will note that similar RFCs (like RFC 6605 for ECDSA) are Proposed Standards
but RFC 8624 and 9157 include language for non-standards track I-Ds that
specify the use of new DNSSEC algorithms. This I-D references and follows the
guidance in RFC 8624 but obsoletes a Standards track document.