Subject: DNSEXT publication request: DS SHA-256

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:24:22 -0500

The DNSEXT working group would like to request the publication of
draft-ietf-dnsext-ds-sha256-04.txt on the standards track.

below is the proto questionnaire. I will be the proto contact.

	Ólafur

Questions:

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
     they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
     for publication?

    Yes.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
     key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
     breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    Yes, at least 5 people in the working group state they have
    reviewed this work thoroughly. We have no concern about the depth
    of review.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
     particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
     complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

    No. This is an additional digest for transferring trust across
    delegation points. The reason for this digest addition was
    guidance from security area director.

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
     you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
     perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
     or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
     time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
     indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

   None

5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
     represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
     being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
     it?

   Real strong. There have been no voices raised that this is not needed.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
     discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

   No.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
     ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

   Yes

8) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
     announcement includes a write up section with the following
     sections.

    In DNSSEC the trust from a parent public DNSKEY is transferred,
    by signing a digest of a child's public DNSKEY and publishes
    the digest in the parent zone in a DS resource record.

    The currently defined digest algorithm SHA-1 is not as strong
    as previously was thought and stronger protection is urgently needed.
    This document adds a second stronger digest algorithm that is mandated
    and implementations are instructed to prefer.

    There are implementations in prototype state, the implementations can be
    released as soon as IANA officially assigns an algorithm number. For
    DNSSEC deployment reasons it is important that this number get assigned
    as soon as possible. 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>