Re: [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

[Boris Makarenko]

Hi!

Then, what should we do? If we change the intended status to standards 
track, will it be ok? Will it require more steps to get it approved?


Can we possibly get the draft approved as an informational RFC?

--

Boris

18.10.2022 17:58, Ron Even пишет:
Hi, your response does not address my comments. 1. whis is this an  > informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. 2. What is requested 
> from IANA. ths text you wrote and I copied is not a directive to > 
IANA that is clear Roni > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:44 PM Макаренко 
Борис > mailto:bmakare...@tcinet.ru>> wrote: > > 
Hello, Roni! > > The old algorithms GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-2001 
and GOST R > 34.11-2001 are considered obsolete. They are now replaced 
with GOST > R 34.10-2012 (digital signature) and GOST R 34.11-2012 (hash 
> function). Basically, the use of GOST algorithms in DNSSEC remains > 
the same as described in RFC 5933, but it is necessary to replace > them 
with the new ones. Old algorithms should not be used anymore. > That's 
why we need to obsolete RFC 5933. > > The section "IANA Considerations" 
proposes to assign numbers for > GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 
in the IANA registries "DNS > Security Algorithm Numbers" > 
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml 
> > 
)
and "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest  > Algorithms" > 
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml > 
). > > 
Updates for RFC 8624 are described in the corresponding Section. > > -- 
Boris > > > 13.10.2022 14:41, Roni Even via Datatracker writes: >> 
Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready >> >> I am the assigned 
Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General >> Area Review Team 
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being >> processed by the IESG for 
the IETF Chair. Please treat these >> comments just like any other last 
call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> 
 >> 
. >> >> Document: 
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-?? Reviewer: Roni Even >> Review Date: 
2022-10-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19 IESG Telechat >> date: Not 
scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: the document is almost ready for 
publication as some type >> of an RFC >> >> Major issues: The document 
is meant to be an informational RFC >> obsoleting RFC5933 a standard 
track RFC. why is this change. >> >> Minor issues: >> >> the directive 
in the IANA consideration "The entry for Value 3, >> GOST R 34.11-94 
should be updated to have its Status changed to >> '-'" is not clear. 
there is no status field in the table as I see >> in RFC8624 section 3.3 
>> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> >> >> >___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

[Ron Even]

Hi,
your response does not address my comments.
1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
2. What is requested from IANA. ths text you wrote and I copied is not a
directive to IANA that is clear
Roni

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:44 PM Макаренко Борис 
wrote:

> Hello, Roni!
>
> The old algorithms GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R
> 34.11-2001 are considered obsolete. They are now replaced with GOST R
> 34.10-2012 (digital signature) and GOST R 34.11-2012 (hash function).
> Basically, the use of GOST algorithms in DNSSEC remains the same as
> described in RFC 5933, but it is necessary to replace them with the new
> ones. Old algorithms should not be used anymore. That's why we need to
> obsolete RFC 5933.
>
> The section "IANA Considerations" proposes to assign numbers for GOST R
> 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 in the IANA registries "DNS Security
> Algorithm Numbers" (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml)
> and "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml).
>
> Updates for RFC 8624 are described in the corresponding Section.
>
> --
> Boris
>
>
> 13.10.2022 14:41, Roni Even via Datatracker writes:
> > Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned
> Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF
> Chair. Please treat these comments just like > any other last call
> comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > >
> 
> . > > Document:
> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review > Date:
> 2022-10-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19 IESG Telechat date: Not > scheduled
> for a telechat > > Summary: the document is almost ready for publication as
> some type of > an RFC > > Major issues: The document is meant to be an
> informational RFC > obsoleting RFC5933 a standard track RFC. why is this
> change. > > Minor issues: > > the directive in the IANA consideration "The
> entry for Value 3, > GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its Status
> changed to '-'" > is not clear. there is no status field in the table as I
> see in > RFC8624 section 3.3 > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > >
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

[Макаренко Борис]

Hello, Roni!

The old algorithms GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 
34.11-2001 are considered obsolete. They are now replaced with GOST R 
34.10-2012 (digital signature) and GOST R 34.11-2012 (hash function). 
Basically, the use of GOST algorithms in DNSSEC remains the same as 
described in RFC 5933, but it is necessary to replace them with the new 
ones. Old algorithms should not be used anymore. That's why we need to 
obsolete RFC 5933.


The section "IANA Considerations" proposes to assign numbers for GOST R 
34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 in the IANA registries "DNS Security 
Algorithm Numbers" 
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml) 
and "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" 
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml).


Updates for RFC 8624 are described in the corresponding Section.

--
Boris


13.10.2022 14:41, Roni Even via Datatracker writes:
Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready  > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General 
Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed 
by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like 
> any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see 
the FAQ at > > . > > 
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review > 
Date: 2022-10-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19 IESG Telechat date: Not > 
scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: the document is almost ready for 
publication as some type of > an RFC > > Major issues: The document is 
meant to be an informational RFC > obsoleting RFC5933 a standard track 
RFC. why is this change. > > Minor issues: > > the directive in the IANA 
consideration "The entry for Value 3, > GOST R 34.11-94 should be 
updated to have its Status changed to '-'" > is not clear. there is no 
status field in the table as I see in > RFC8624 section 3.3 > > 
Nits/editorial comments: > > > >___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

[Roni Even via Datatracker]

Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Almost Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2022-10-13
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
the document is almost ready for publication as some type of an RFC

Major issues:
The document is meant to be an informational RFC obsoleting RFC5933 a standard
track RFC. why is this change.

Minor issues:

the directive in the IANA consideration   "The entry for Value 3, GOST R
34.11-94 should be updated to have its Status changed to '-'" is not clear.
there is no status field in the table as I see in RFC8624 section 3.3

Nits/editorial comments:



___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop