Subject: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes and draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation WGLC announcement

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:23:25 -0500

Dear colleagues,

This email begins a three week Working Group Last Call for the two
documents draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00.txt and
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-01.txt.  We are calling these
documents together because in our view they naturally complement one
another.

Please note that draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00.txt alters
the way algorithm identifiers are assigned, and has a fail-safe
provision in it to protect the number space as it starts to be
depleted.  It is particularly important that the WG decide whether
that provision is a good one and, if so, if it is set at the right
level.

This WGLC will end at 17:00 EST on 2010-01-09.  Participants are
reminded that the WG's process rules require at least five people to
say that they have read the document, and that they support it, before
it can be forwarded to the IESG for publication.  We have the list of
volunteers who previously agreed to read this document, and if you
don't perform the review as expected, we'll approach you directly.

Participants are reminded that _ad hominem_ attacks are not permitted,
and that they should confine themsleves to the technical merits of the
drafts.

I will be the document shepherd for these drafts.

Best regards,

Andrew

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

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:51:45 +0000

> documents together because in our view they naturally complement one

draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-01 undos the upcoming ID
assignment for the GOST algorithms.  Unless it is guaranteed that the
registry draft overtakes the GOST draft in the publishing pipeline,
the registry draft must be updated.  (I haven't checked if other
algorithms are missing from the table in section 2.2.)

Is a normative reference to an I-D in a standards-track RFC
acceptable?  The only reference to OBSOLETE could be replaced with
OPTIONAL and a footnote saying that RSAMD5 should be considered
broken.

draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 looks fine and should go
forward.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <[email-masked]>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:55:44 -0500

>algorithms are missing from the table in section 2.2.)

GOST can not have an allocation until after the IESG has concluded its
evaluation, thus this draft can not make assumptions about
GOTS's fate, adding GOST is easy.

>OPTIONAL and a footnote saying that RSAMD5 should be considered

Having a normative reference to another ID is fine, the implication
is that this document will be published with or after the normative
reference.

>draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 looks fine and should go

         Olafur