Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it. Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis Title: DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process Reviewer: Nabeel Cocker Review result: Has Nits First many thanks to the authors for working on this. A couple of nits: Section 1.2, paragraph 3: ========================== "This will allow for deprecated algorithms to become used less and less over time." Perhaps say it like "This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms decreases over time." Section 2: =========== The last paragraph states The "Implement for" column values are transcribed from [RFC8624]. The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the "implement for" ... "implement for" has a lower case "i". Section 2: ---------- The last paragraph states: The "Implement for" column values are transcribed from [RFC8624]. The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the "implement for" values since the general interpretation to date indicates they have been treated as values for both "implementation" and "use". We note that the values for "Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future. The above text indicates that the "Implement for" and "Use for" columns should have identical values. However, when I look at Table 2, there are differences between the values in the "Implement for" and the "Use for" for number 5, 7, 8, 10 and 13, For example, in number 5 where Use for DNSSEC Validation is "RECOMMEND" but the Implement for DNSSEC Validation is "MUST" |5 |RSASHA1 |NOT |RECOMMENDED|NOT |MUST | | | |RECOMMENDED| |RECOMMENDED| | Is this intentional or am I misreading? If so, there does not seem to be any text explaining this (or I missed it?). Otherwise, the document is very well written. Many thanks to the authors! Regards, Nabeel -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
