Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-06-11
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-06-03
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-05-14
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-04-22
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2019-04-22
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-04-22
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-04-22
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-04-22
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Downref to RFC 6979 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-10 |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Downref to RFC 6986 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-10 |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2019-04-22
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-04-20
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-04-20
|
10 | Paul Wouters | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-10.txt |
2019-04-20
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-20
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2019-04-20
|
10 | Paul Wouters | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-12
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my COMMENTS. |
2019-04-12
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2019-04-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-04-11
|
09 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-04-11
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-04-10
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-04-10
|
09 | Paul Wouters | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-09.txt |
2019-04-10
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-10
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2019-04-10
|
09 | Paul Wouters | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Abstract. Nit. There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which isn’t permitted. (2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only … [Ballot comment] (1) Abstract. Nit. There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which isn’t permitted. (2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended” ** Editorial: s/algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended/ algorithms so weak that they cannot be recommended/ ** The first part of the sentence doesn’t appear to be consistent with the RFC2119 words in the Section 3.1 Table which also includes RECOMMENDED/MAY (which is neither MTI or NOT RECOMMENDED) (3) Section 1.3, Typo, s/from from/from/ (4) Section 3.1, Typo, s/cryptographics/cryptographic/ (5) Section 3.1, ED448 appears to be the only algorithm that doesn’t have treatment in even briefly describing its designated implementation recommendation. (6) Section 3.1, The sentence “It is expected that ED25519 will become the future RECOMMENDED default algorithm …” is clear on the future. However, looking back at the table in this section, it wasn’t clear what the current default algorithm is. (7) Section 3.2, The sentence “Operation recommendation for new and existing deployments.” Seems to stand alone or is missing some words. Should it be something along the lines of “This section provides operational recommendations …” (8) Section 3.2, Typo, s/is RECOMMENDED/is the RECOMMENDED/ (9) Section 3.4, Editorial, s/The SHA-256/SHA-256/ (10) Section 4, Typo, s/seciton/section/ (11) Section 5, Editorial, s/for the use of DNSSEC/for use in DNSSEC/ |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Abstract. Nit. There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which isn’t permitted. (2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only … [Ballot comment] (1) Abstract. Nit. There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which isn’t permitted. (2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended” ** Editorial: s/algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended/ algorithms so weak that they cannot be recommended/ ** The first part of the sentence doesn’t appear to be consistent with the RFC2119 words in the Section 3.1 Table which also includes RECOMMENDED/MAY (which neither MTI or NOT RECOMMENDED) (3) Section 1.3, Typo, s/from from/from/ (4) Section 3.1, Typo, s/cryptographics/cryptographic/ (5) Section 3.1, ED448 appears to be the only algorithm that doesn’t have treatment in even briefly describing its designated implementation recommendation. (6) Section 3.1, The sentence “It is expected that ED25519 will become the future RECOMMENDED default algorithm …” is clear on the future. However, looking back at the table in this section, it wasn’t clear what the current default algorithm is. (7) Section 3.2, The sentence “Operation recommendation for new and existing deployments.” Seems to stand alone or is missing some words. Should it be something along the lines of “This section provides operational recommendations …” (8) Section 3.2, Typo, s/is RECOMMENDED/is the RECOMMENDED/ (9) Section 3.4, Editorial, s/The SHA-256/SHA-256/ (10) Section 4, Typo, s/seciton/section/ (11) Section 5, Editorial, s/for the use of DNSSEC/for use in DNSSEC/ |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Abstract. Nit. There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which isn’t permitted. (2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only … [Ballot comment] (1) Abstract. Nit. There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which isn’t permitted. (2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended” ** Editorial: s/algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended/ algorithms so weak that they cannot be recommended/ ** The first part of the sentence doesn’t appear to be consistent with the RFC2119 words in the Section 3.1 Table which also includes RECOMMENDED/MAY (which neither MTI or NOT RECOMMENDED) (3) Section 1.3, Typo, s/from from/from/ (4) Section 3.1, Typo, s/cryptographics/cryptographic/ (5) Section 3.1, ED448 appears to be the only algorithm that doesn’t have treatment in even briefly describing its designated implementation recommendation. (6) Section 3.1, The sentence “It is expected that ED25519 will become the future RECOMMENDED default algorithm …” is clear on the future. However, looking back at the table in this section, it wasn’t clear what the current default algorithm is. (7) Section 3.2, The sentence “Operation recommendation for new and existing deployments.” Seems to stand alone or is missing some words. Should it be something along the lines of “This section provides operational recommendations …” (8) Section 3.2, Typo, s/is RECOMMENDED/is the RECOMMENDED/ (9) Section 3.4, Editorial, s/The SHA-256/SHA-256/ (10) Section 4, Typo, s/seciton/section/ (11) Section 5, Editorial, s/for the use of DNSSEC/for use in DNSSEC/ |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-04-10
|
08 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-04-09
|
08 | Adam Roach | > New, stronger > algorithms appear and existing algorithms are found to be less secure > then originally thought. Nit: "...than originally thought..." … > New, stronger > algorithms appear and existing algorithms are found to be less secure > then originally thought. Nit: "...than originally thought..." ^ Nit 2: This text describes the diminished desirability of older algorithms only in the context of hardware advancements, which are usually incremental and can be seen coming (although progress on large quantum computers might change this). It should probably also mention the possibility of newly-discovered vulnerabilities that can render algorithms undesirable instantaneously (see, e.g., the MD5 Verisign root cert exploit demonstrated by Sotirov et al in 2008), as this serves as a far more compelling motivation to get the new algorithms in the field before they're strictly needed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > RSASHA1 and RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 are widely deployed, although zones > deploying it Nit: "...deploying them..." |
2019-04-09
|
08 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-04-09
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-04-09
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-04-09
|
08 | Paul Wouters | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-08.txt |
2019-04-09
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-09
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2019-04-09
|
08 | Paul Wouters | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-09
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-04-08
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-04-08
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Please respond to the Gen-ART review. In line with Mirja's comment, if the WG or someone in it were planning on maintaining the … [Ballot comment] Please respond to the Gen-ART review. In line with Mirja's comment, if the WG or someone in it were planning on maintaining the 4.1 comparison table somewhere less stable than an RFC, that seems like it could be useful and could be linked to from the WG datatracker page. |
2019-04-08
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-04-07
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] — Section 1.2 — This document only provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that recommendation … [Ballot comment] — Section 1.2 — This document only provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended. “...so weak that their use cannot [or perhaps can no longer] be recommended.” |
2019-04-07
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-04-06
|
07 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. |
2019-04-05
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] I'm a little surprised that this is going for PS rather than BCP, which seems like it would reflect the recognized need for … [Ballot comment] I'm a little surprised that this is going for PS rather than BCP, which seems like it would reflect the recognized need for recurring updates to the guidance given. In a similar vein, if we stay at PS, a lot of the references seem like they would need to move from Informative to Normative, since to implement the various MUST-level algorithms you have to follow those references. Section 1.1 The field of cryptography evolves continuously. New stronger algorithms appear and existing algorithms are found to be less secure then originally thought. [...] I'd suggest also noting that attacks previously thought to be computationally infeasible become more accessible as the available computational resources increase. Section 1.2 For clarification and consistency, an algorithm will be specified as MAY in this document only when it has been downgraded. Does "downgraded" mean that it was formerly mandatory but has been rotated out of the mandatory role? Perhaps explicitly saying "downgraded from " would aid clarity. Section 3.3 SHA-384 shares the same properties as SHA-256, but offers a modest security advantage over SHA-384 (384-bits of strength versus nit: SHA-384 has an advantage over ... SHA-384? recommended for DS and CDS records. While it is unlikely for a DNSSEC use case requiring 384-bit security strength to arise, SHA-384 is provided for such applications and it MAY be used for generating DS and CDS records in these cases. My understanding is that generally we refer to SHA-384 as providing 192-bit security, though of course that's a vague/generic statement and more specific ones are possible. Section 8 We wish to thank Michael Sinatra, Roland van Rijswijk-Deij, Olafur Gudmundsson, Paul Hoffman and Evan Hunt for their imminent feedback. IIRC a directorate reviewer noted that "imminent" means "expected to arrive in the near future but not yet present"; such text does not seem appropriate for final publication since review after that point would not be helpful. |
2019-04-05
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-04-03
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I wonder if it makes sense to keep section "4.1. DNSKEY Algorithms" with the table in the document. Of course this is only … [Ballot comment] I wonder if it makes sense to keep section "4.1. DNSKEY Algorithms" with the table in the document. Of course this is only a current snapshot but probably gives readers also in future a good indication with tools to look at. |
2019-04-03
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-03-20
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-03-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2019-03-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2019-03-13
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-03-13
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07.txt |
2019-03-13
|
07 | (System) | Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received |
2019-03-13
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-04-11 |
2019-03-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-03-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
2019-03-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-03-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-03-11
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-03-07
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2019-02-28
|
06 | Brian Weis | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Weis. Sent review to list. |
2019-02-27
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-02-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-02-25
|
06 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. While it is the case that the IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion, IANA does have a question about the requirement level tables in the current document. IANA Question --> Are the requirements tables in Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of the current draft candidates for a registry on the IANA Protocol Registry pages located at https://www.iana.org/protocols ? The IANA Functions Operator requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2019-02-18
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2019-02-18
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2019-02-17
|
06 | Paul Wouters | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-06.txt |
2019-02-17
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-17
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2019-02-17
|
06 | Paul Wouters | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-14
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jari Arkko |
2019-02-14
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jari Arkko |
2019-02-14
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2019-02-14
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-02-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-02-27): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski , draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-02-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non- existence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes [RFC6944]. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-02-13
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2019-02-12
|
05 | Paul Wouters | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-05.txt |
2019-02-12
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-12
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2019-02-12
|
05 | Paul Wouters | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-11
|
04 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of … draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? RFC is Standards Track, which is listed and we feel is correct. Technical Summary The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non- existence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes Working Group Summary The Working Group did not have any controvesery on this document. There was discussion around the 2119 Normative terms as this draft uses RECOMMENDED/NOT RECOMMENDED instead of SHOULD/SHOULD NOT. This did not cause any probelms gaining consensus Document Quality Document is very concise and informative as it updates the list of recommendations for DNSKEY algorithms. Personnel Document Shepherd? Tim Wicinski Responsible Area Director? Warren Kumari (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. Document Shepherd performed a review for content as well as editorial review, and found the document ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No Concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No additional Reviews (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Issues (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus is solid (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No Appeals threatened (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The abstract references RFC6944, but also includes a reference, which it should not. Also, 'NOT RECOMMENDED' is not in the list of 2119 key words though it is used. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have been identified. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This draft will obsolete 6944 (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No IANA considerations (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of … draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? RFC is Standards Track, which is listed and we feel is correct. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non- existence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Document Shepherd? Tim Wicinski Responsible Area Director? Warren Kumari (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No Concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No additional Reviews (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Issues (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus is solid (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No Appeals threatened (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No outstanding Nits (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have been identified. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This draft will obsolete 6944 (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No IANA considerations (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-02-08
|
04 | Tim Wicinski | draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of … draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? RFC is Standards Track, which is listed and we feel is correct. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non- existence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Document Shepherd? Tim Wicinski Responsible Area Director? Warren Kumari (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No Concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No additional Reviews (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Issues (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus is solid (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No Appeals threatened (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No outstanding Nits (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have been identified. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This draft will obsolete 6944 (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No IANA considerations (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2018-10-23
|
04 | Ondřej Surý | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-04.txt |
2018-10-23
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-23
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2018-10-23
|
04 | Ondřej Surý | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-23
|
03 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-10-23
|
03 | Ondřej Surý | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-03.txt |
2018-10-23
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-23
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2018-10-23
|
03 | Ondřej Surý | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-14
|
02 | Ondřej Surý | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-02.txt |
2018-10-14
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2018-10-14
|
02 | Ondřej Surý | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-02
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-10-02
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | Notification list changed to Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> |
2018-10-02
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | Document shepherd changed to Tim Wicinski |
2018-07-10
|
01 | Tim Wicinski | Added to session: IETF-102: dnsop Wed-0930 |
2018-06-05
|
01 | Ondřej Surý | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-01.txt |
2018-06-05
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Paul Wouters , Ondrej Sury |
2018-06-05
|
01 | Ondřej Surý | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-31
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-03-31
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-03-29
|
00 | Tim Wicinski | This document now replaces draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update instead of None |
2018-03-29
|
00 | Ondřej Surý | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-00.txt |
2018-03-29
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-03-22
|
00 | Ondřej Surý | Set submitter to "Ondrej Sury ", replaces to draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update and sent approval email to group chairs: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-03-22
|
00 | Ondřej Surý | Uploaded new revision |