Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from dnsext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-03-26
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2012-03-24
|
08 | Andrew Sullivan | IETF state changed to Dead WG Document from WG Document |
2012-03-11
|
08 | Andrew Sullivan | Replaced by two other documents after IETF LC. |
2012-03-11
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to Dead from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed |
2011-06-23
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Richard Barnes. |
2011-06-21
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-06-21
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer. |
2011-06-21
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] I think that keeping compliance information in an IANA registry is a bad idea. A solution on the lines of what Robert proposes … [Ballot discuss] I think that keeping compliance information in an IANA registry is a bad idea. A solution on the lines of what Robert proposes in his DISCUSS would solve the issue and I support it. I am entering however a DISCUSS and not a COMMENT with the purpose of turning it into an ABSTAIN if the decision is to go ahead on the current path, or clearing if some variant of Robert's proposal is accepted. |
2011-06-21
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-06-21
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot comment] Also support Robert's proposal. |
2011-06-20
|
08 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-06-08
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from In Last Call. |
2011-06-08
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Area acronym has been changed to int from gen |
2011-06-08
|
08 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] I concur with Robert's discuss and proposed solution. |
2011-06-08
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, a single IANA action is required to be … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, a single IANA action is required to be completed. The Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers registry, located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xml is to be completely replaced. IANA will use the contents of Section 2.2 of the approved document to completely replace the existing registry. In the column "Compliance to RFC TBD", "RFC TBD" should be changed to [ RFC-to-be ] when published. Section 2.3 provides the instructions for adding and updating entries in this registry and will be noted in the new registry. IANA understands that this is the only action required upon document approval. |
2011-06-08
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-06-08
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I support Robert's discuss and his proposed solution looks to me like it'd work if the WG has not got a reason why … [Ballot comment] I support Robert's discuss and his proposed solution looks to me like it'd work if the WG has not got a reason why its a bad plan. |
2011-06-08
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-06-07
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] I concur with the concerns raised by Pete Resnick and consider the solution proposed by Robert Sparks to be a reasonable path forward. … [Ballot discuss] I concur with the concerns raised by Pete Resnick and consider the solution proposed by Robert Sparks to be a reasonable path forward. I would go farther and suggest that there is no need at all for an IANA registry, simply an RFC that lists the most up-to-date recommendations. Obsolete it when the recommendations change and it will be clear to those who implement and deploy DNSSEC which algorithms are appropriate at any given time. |
2011-06-07
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-06-07
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 5-June-2011 raised some points that deserve a response. I have not seen a response yet. … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 5-June-2011 raised some points that deserve a response. I have not seen a response yet. Feel free to respond to all of the points raised by Alexey. I have constructed these questions based on Alexey's review: (1) Looking at the difference between this document and the IANA registry , I can see that they have different list of RFC numbers in the right column. Is this intentional? Is the list in this document correct? (2) As somebody else already pointed out during the IETF Last Call the range 123-251 is Reserved by RFC 6014, but this reservation is not mentioned in this document. Why not? (3) Section 2.3 requires the replacement of the whole table. It seems like overkill to replace the whole table every time a change to a single algorithm implementation status is needed. This practice could result in mistakes and lead to exactly the kind of trouble that this document demonstrates. Why is this the best approach for this IANA table? |
2011-06-07
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-06-07
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] Would the following approach achieve the goals the working group desires with this document? Instead of keeping the Compliance information in the IANA … [Ballot discuss] Would the following approach achieve the goals the working group desires with this document? Instead of keeping the Compliance information in the IANA registry as a new column, keep it entirely within this RFC. Add a sentence to the registry that says "See RFCXXXX for the IETF Consensus on which subset of these algorithms are required or recommended to implement or avoid." The RFC could then say that any changes to the RFC affecting that column should be done through obsoleting the RFC, replacing it with a new one. That way, you would have a single document to refer to for conformance purposes, and a clear history of what changes were made. This would avoid Pete's concerns with the potential unintended consequences of the new proposed mechanics for maintaining the registry. It would also avoid an issue I have with the sentence that tries to constrain any updates to this RFC to _only_ use the obsoletes mechanism. It allows the working group to maintain any changes by only using a series of obsoletes, and guides future maintainers should the working group go away. As long as the consensus was to only use obsoletes, that's exactly what will happen. If IETF consensus changes in the future, it would override any attempt to constrain the document maintenance anyway. If a path like this was considered and rejected, documenting what it wouldn't achieve would help motivate the current proposal. |
2011-06-07
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-06-05
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Comments I made to the WG regarding the references to "Reserved until 2020" and the correction to the unassigned code points the WG … [Ballot comment] Comments I made to the WG regarding the references to "Reserved until 2020" and the correction to the unassigned code points the WG has agreed to fix. |
2011-06-05
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] I think the mechanism specified for registry update in section 2.3 is so far out of the norm that it should be reconsidered. … [Ballot discuss] I think the mechanism specified for registry update in section 2.3 is so far out of the norm that it should be reconsidered. In particular, the idea of rewriting the entire registry every time a change to a single entry in the registry occurs seems inappropriate. I fear that, for example, if an entry moves from RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT to MUST IMPLEMENT, the history of how it got to that state will be lost. Futher, I think the RFC that made the algorithm RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT, or MUST IMPLEMENT, or MUST NOT IMPLEMENT should be in the Reference column of the registry. Finally, I think referring to "Compliance" in the registry is wildly outside of IETF norms. Suggested changes: a) Define the registry such that "Standards Action" (or maybe "IETF Review", i.e., IESG or WG document) is required for changes to the registry. b) The "Reference" column in the registry must be to a document that defines the requirements level for DNSSec (MUST IMPLEMENT, MUST NOT IMPLEMENT, etc.) in addition to a definition of the algorithm. (They can be the same document, or more than one.) c) Change the "Compliance to RFC TBD1" column to "Requirements level", which should reflect the contents of the document pointed to in (b). Then all of this nonsense about rewriting the registry every time can be removed. |
2011-06-05
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-06-02
|
08 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-06-01
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-06-01
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I believe that it is useful to the reader if the updating text is included in the documnet abstract. Perhaps I should clarify … [Ballot comment] I believe that it is useful to the reader if the updating text is included in the documnet abstract. Perhaps I should clarify that, I mean the list of updated documents. |
2011-06-01
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I believe that it is useful to the reader if the updating text is included in the documnet abstract. |
2011-06-01
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-05-31
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2011-05-31
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-06-09 |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA Registry' as a 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 2011-06-09. 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 DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms that is incomplete in that it lacks the implementation status of each algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on algorithm implementation compliance status for DNSSEC implementations. This status is to measure compliance to this RFC only. This document replaces that registry table with a new IANA registry table for Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers that lists (or assigns) each algorithm's status based on the current reference. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued |
2011-05-26
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-05-26
|
08 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-05-26
|
08 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-05-26
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08.txt |
2011-05-18
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-05-18
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-05-18
|
08 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-04-14
|
08 | Ralph Droms | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-04-13
|
08 | Amy Vezza | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Andrew Sullivan. Yes, I believe it is ready. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The WG has been talking about this draft for some time. I believe it has had adequate review, but it is a strange document. It is basically a process document, and I therefore suspect that the only time it will get the sort of attention it needs on that front is during IETF-wide review. It should also be reviewed by IANA. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? The draft uses a novel procedural trick to put something into a registry that usually isn't in a registry, so I think this will require careful review by IETF process wonks. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are those who have argued that what the document is doing -- putting "implementation levels" into a registry -- is a bad idea. This appears to have been a minority position. (1.e) 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? There have been many WG participants who have been mute on this document, which might suggest indifference. The documents on which it is based, however, all had reasonably strong WG consensus, so there is no concern that there is technical disagreement here. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The abstract does not mention the RFCs that the draft updates, and it should do. We presume there will be updates as a result of IETF last call, and this oversight can be fixed then. There is an obsolete normative reference, but that is intentional because of the way the registry is being respecified. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are correct. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes. The document replaces a registry; that is all it does. In some ways, the entire document is an IANA consideration. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A (1.k) 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 This memo completely replaces the Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers registry. The new registry includes a field to indicate requirements for compliance to this memo. At the same time, the registry is adjusted to include some reservations of values that have been observed as being in use on the Internet. Working Group Summary The Working Group believes that the DNSSEC Algorithm Numbers registry needs maintenance. This memo is intended to do that. The memo includes a novel mechanism for specifying whether an algorithm is "required". The registry includes a field that indicates whether an algorithm is required, recommended, or forbidden by this memo, and the memo includes a constraint that it cannot be updated, only obsoleted. Not everyone thinks the additional field is a good idea. Document Quality This is a process-only document intended to present a clean and usable registry for IANA; there is no protocol to implement. |
2011-04-13
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-04-13
|
08 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Andrew Sullivan (ajs@shinkuro.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-01-05
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-07.txt |
2010-08-11
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06.txt |
2010-06-18
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-05.txt |
2010-05-17
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-04.txt |
2010-04-13
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-03.txt |
2010-02-22
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-02.txt |
2009-11-12
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-01.txt |
2009-10-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-00.txt |