Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!--[rfced] In the first sentence, should "an IANA registry" be updated to "the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries"? In the second sentence, should "this registry" be updated to "these registries"? If not, should the registry name be included for clarity? Also, please clarify "incremental update RFCs". Is the intended meaning that future extensions can be made under new, incremental RFCs that update this document? Current: This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to an IANA registry. Future extensions to this registry can be made under new, incremental update RFCs. Perhaps: This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries. Future extensions to these registries can be made under new, incremental RFCs that update this document. --> 3) <!--[rfced] We assume that the second instance of "the list" is "the list of requirements"; therefore, we have updated this sentence for clarity as shown below. Please let us know if this is incorrect. Original: This is done both to allow the list of requirements to be more easily updated, and to allow the list to be more easily referenced. Current: This is done to allow the list of requirements to be more easily updated and referenced. --> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI: We added that this document "updates RFC 9157" in the Abstract as shown below. Original: This document also incorporates the revised IANA DNSSEC considerations from RFC9157. Current: This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates the revised IANA DNSSEC considerations from that RFC. --> 5) <!--[rfced] Should "MUST", "MAY", and "RECOMMENDED" be referred to as the "recommendation status" or the "DNSSEC delegation, signing, or validation status" rather than "status" for clarity? Original: The document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; that is the work of future documents. Perhaps: This document does not change the recommendation status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is the work of future documents. --> 6) <!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the second IANA registry listed below to reflect the registry name rather than the registry group for clarity and consistency. Original: The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" [DNSKEY-IANA] and "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target DNSSEC operators and implementers. Current: The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" [DNSKEY-IANA] and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target DNSSEC operators and implementers. --> 7) <!--[rfced] Questions about Section 2.2 a) In this section, may we put the notes that appear in the IANA registry within <blockquote>? Should lead-in sentences be added for clarity? If so, please provide the desired text. Perhaps: The following note describing the procedures for adding and changing values has been added to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry: Note: ... The following note has been added to the "Digest Algorithms" registry: Note: ... b) May we update the phrasing of these two paragraphs for ease of reading as shown below (i.e., make "existing values" singular for consistency and move the '"any value other than "May"' phrasing up)? If agreeable, we will ask IANA to make the same updates to the notes in the corresponding registries. c) In the first example below, should the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry be updated to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry? Note that this registry name also appears in the first paragraph in Section 2.2. d) Note: Per IANA's note, we have updated the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry in the second example shown below. Original: Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than "MAY" requires a Standards Action. Perhaps: Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns requires Standards Action. ... Original: Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than "MAY" requires a Standards Action. Perhaps: Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the "Digest Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns requires Standards Action. --> 8) <!--[rfced] Section 3. Since there are multiple registries under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group, we added the registry name for clarity as shown below. Also, to avoid using "recommendation" twice, do you prefer option A, which matches the title of Table 2, or option B? Note that there is similar text in Section 4 that we would also apply this update to. Original: Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation recommendations for the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" are shown in Table 2. Perhaps A: Initial values for the use and implementation recommendation columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group are shown in Table 2. or Perhaps B: Initial use and implementation recommendation columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group are shown in Table 2. --> 9) <!--[rfced] Should "use" be "Use for" and "column" be "columns"? If not, please clarify which "use" column this is referring to. Note that this sentence occurs in Sections 3 and 4. Original: When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column, operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy. Perhaps: When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "Use for" columns, operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy. --> 10) <!--[rfced] Questions about Table 2 a) In Table 2, some of the values in the "Use for" and "Implement for" columns are different than what is listed in "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry (specifically, see numbers 5, 7, and 12). Should Table 2 be updated to match the IANA registry as shown below, or should the IANA registry be updated to match Table 2? b) In Table 2, numbers 17, 23, 253, and 254 use terms from the Description column in the registry whereas the rest of the numbers use terms from the Mnemonic column. Should these numbers be updated to use the mnemonic terms for consistency as shown below, or do you prefer otherwise? Registry URL: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/> Original: 5 RSASHA1 NOT RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|NOT RECOMMENDED|MUST 7 RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 NOT RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|NOT RECOMMENDED|MUST 12 ECC-GOST MUST NOT | MAY |MUST NOT |MAY 17 SM2/SM3 ... 23 GOST R 34.10-2012 253 private algorithm 254 private algorithm OID Perhaps (to match the IANA registry): 5 RSASHA1 MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED |NOT RECOMMENDED |MUST 7 RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED |NOT RECOMMENDED |MUST 12 ECC-GOST MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT 17 SM2SM3 ... 23 ECC-GOST12 253 PRIVATEDNS 254 PRIVATEOID --> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the titles of Section 4 and Table 3 to reflect the registry name rather than the registry group name for clarity and consistency as shown below. Original (Section 4): 4. DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms Column Values Current: 4. Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values ... Original (Table 3 title): Initial values for the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns Current: Initial Values for the Digest Algorithms Registry Columns --> 12) <!--[rfced] We note differences between Table 3 and the "Digest Algorithms" registry. Should this document be updated to match the registry as shown below, or should the registry be updated to match this document? We also note that this document is listed as a reference for values 128-252 and 253-254. Should this document be listed as a reference for any other values in the registry? Registry URL: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/> Original: 0 NULL (CDS only) MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT 3 GOST R 34.11-94 MUST NOT | MAY | MUST NOT | MAY Perhaps (to match the IANA registry): 0 Reserved MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT 3 GOST R 34.11-94 MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT --> 13) <!--[rfced] In Section 7.1, we made the following text into a bulleted list to match Section 7.2. We also updated "Section 2" to "Section 2.2" in both sections. Please let us know of any objection to these changes. Original: Additionally, the registration policy for the [DNSKEY-IANA] registry should match the text describing the requirements in this document, and Section 2's note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" should be added to the registry. This document should be listed as a reference to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry. Current: Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA]: * Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or Specification Required. * Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" per Section 2.2. * Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry. --> 14) <!--[rfced] Terminology FYI: We have updated the following terms to the form on the right for consistency. Please let us know of any objection. ciphersuite -> cipher suite (to match the "TLS Cipher Suites" registry) non-existence -> nonexistence (per RFC 8624) --> 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review this and each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. DNS Public Key (DNSKEY) --> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. Karen Moore RFC Production Center On Oct 29, 2025, at 8:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/10/29 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * [email protected] (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9904-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9904 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9904 (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13) Title : DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process Author(s) : W. Hardaker, W. Kumari WG Chair(s) : Benno Overeinder, Ond?ej Surý Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
