Dear Wes and Warren, Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document accordingly and have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page. One more clarification.
1) Under the Normative References section, the [DNSKEY-IANA] and [DS-IANA] entries both list the top registry names. If you prefer to list the direct registry names instead, please let us know. --Files-- Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905.html Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9905-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9905 Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Nov 4, 2025, at 7:41 AM, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Warren Kumari <[email protected]> writes: > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >> the title) for >> use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. >> --> >> >> DNS, rollover, agility, algorithm, SHA1 > > Probably should add DNSSEC to Warren's list. > >> Thank you very much for all of the below proposals — I have reviewed and >> approved all, and >> I approve publication, etc.. > > Agreed! > > A couple more notes inline: > >> 3) <!--[rfced] FYI: The acronyms appear to be mismatched with the >> expansions, so we >> switched them accordingly as shown below. > > Ack!!! There are so many times I think "how did I miss that" or even > better "how in the world did the RFC editor catch that when we didn't"? > Once again your value in this whole process is incredible. Thank you. > >> 5) <!--[rfced] Is it correct that "DNSSEC Delegation" is uppercase and >> "DNSSEC signing" is lowercase in this sentence? > > Delegation should be lower case (and I'm now giggling at having to type > it with an upper case in writing this sentence). > >> 6) <!--[rfced] May we refer to the "tables" as "IANA registries" for >> clarity? Also, >> would "use" be clearer than "roll to"? > > I actually think "switch to" might be better. "roll to" is common > terminology in DNSSEC (and cryptography), but you're right it's less > readable. Use doesn't imply the act of switching itself, though, hence > maybe "switch to" is both more readable and still keeps the switching > context? > >> 7) <!--[rfced] Per IANA's protocol action note, should the IANA section >> be updated as >> follows to capture all of IANA's updates to the entries? > > Sounds good. > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFCs 4034 and 5155, please >> review the >> errata reported for each > > I've reviewed them and they're unrelated to our updates. Thanks for > checking. > > Thanks! > -- > Wes Hardaker > Google > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
