Dear Wes, Thanks for clarifying and the pointer. Now it makes much more sense. I suggest to add a remark in the IANA considerations section that this columns are being created by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09 and add the document as normative reference. Then it is clear. Other then that all perfect. Thanks. Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:26 AM To: Thomas Graf via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-E2E <Thomas.Graf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; dnsop@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; iana-chairs@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-06 Be aware: This is an external email. Thomas Graf via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> writes: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the review. > However there is a possible mismatch when comparing the text in the > IANA consideration section of the document and the Delegation Signer > (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms registry. Yes, that's because the other document being progressed at the same time creates the columns with the names that this document is then immediately(ish) changing: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09 Thus, your suggested change would likely work for the existing table, but our intent was the future table modified by the above draft. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
