Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC
RFC 6014

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2010-03-09 for -)
No email
send info
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 2:
> Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 (if approved)

  It's a bit odd to update RFCs that have already been obsoleted (2535,
  3755).

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-03-11)
No email
send info
I agree with Russ' DISCUSS comment - the range of Reserved should extend to include 251.

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2010-05-04)
No email
send info
It is my understanding that the IANA intends to make the .xml files canonical and to deprecate the .xhtml files, so the pointer to "http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml" probably needs to change to "http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/" (the latter URI currently redirects to the .xml file).

I assume that the IANA signed off on the need to add the current standards status of each referenced RFC to the registry, and presumably to update the registry if and when a referenced RFC is obsoleted (or, possibly, updated) by a new RFC.

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection