Subject: [dnsext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-14.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:15:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Use of SHA-2 algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC
	Author(s)       : J. Jansen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-14.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2009-06-04

This document describes how to produce RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512
DNSKEY and RRSIG resource records for use in the Domain Name System
Security Extensions (DNSSEC, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-14.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:21:40 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-14.txt

You may recall that we had what was originally apparently a successful
WGLC on this document, but that after it was sent to the IESG some new
objections surfaced.

The Editor has, we believe, addressed the concerns that were raised
after WGLC last time.

This message starts a nine-day WGLC on the revised document.  The WGLC
will close on 2009-06-15 at 09:00 EDT.  

Please note that, because we had adequate review last time and decided
to send the document to the IESG, we do not require the usual five
expressions of positive review in order to send the document along.
It would be very helpful, however, if those who objected last time
stated explicitly whether their objections were addressed.
Nevertheless, I will interpret silence as consent.  The document will
proceed to the IESG as it stands in the absence of objections.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

--
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/>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:30:04 -0700

>will close on 2009-06-15 at 09:00 EDT. 

The diffs at <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-rsasha256-14.txt> seem fine.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:05:20 +1000

A DNSSSEC validator needs to understand both NSEC and NSEC3 for
positive answers as well and negative answers, see wildard answers.

A DNSSEC validator that implements RSA/SHA-2 MUST be able to validate	
negative answers in the form of both NSEC and NSEC3 with hash	
algorithm 1, as defined in [RFC5155]. An authoritative server that	
does not implement NSEC3 MAY still serve zones that use RSA/SHA-2	
with NSEC denial of existence.

A DNSSEC validator that implements RSA/SHA-2 MUST be able to validate
denial of existance proofs in both NSEC and NSEC3 (with hash algorithm
1, as defined in [RFC5155]) forms.  An authoritative server that
does not implement NSEC3 MAY still serve zones that use RSA/SHA-2
with NSEC denial of existence.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:11:31 -0400

Your message doesn't provide enough context.  I _think_ what you mean
is this:

> positive answers as well and negative answers, see wildard answers.

That is a background remark.
 
> with NSEC denial of existence.

That is a context paragraph taken directly from §5.2 of the -14 draft.
 
> with NSEC denial of existence.
 
That is additional text you want added at the end of §5.2.

Right? 

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:12:06 +1000

> That is a background remark.

Yes.
  
> That is additional text you want added at the end of §5.2.

	Possible replacement text.