Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC
RFC 6014
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 2: > Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 (if approved) It's a bit odd to update RFCs that have already been obsoleted (2535, 3755).
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I agree with Russ' DISCUSS comment - the range of Reserved should extend to include 251.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection