(1) RFC is Proposed Standard, and this is the correct RFC type. They are
updating an existing document which is on Standards Track.
(2)
Technical Summary:
The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms 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 both a set of algorithm implementation requirements and
usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all
implementations support. This document updates [RFC8624] by moving the
canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance
for DNSSEC from [RFC8624] to an IANA registry. Future extensions to this
registry can be made under new, incremental update RFCs.
Working Group Summary:
WG consensus was solid. There was discussions around Section 2 "Adding usage
and implementation recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC tables", but nothing in
conflict.
Document Quality:
Document quality is very good. As this document is updating IANA tables, it is
more about documenting existing usage and not about implemenetations.
Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke
(3) The Document Shepherd did a detailed review of the document for content as
well as simple editorial checks (spelling/grammar). The shepherd feels the
document is ready for publication.
(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns on the depth or breadth of the
reviews.
(5) There is no need for broader review.
(6) There are no concerns from the document shepherd.
(7) No IPR disclosures
(8) There is no IPR
(9) The WG Consensus on this document is strong.
(10) There has been no appeals.
(11) All nits found have been addressed by the authors.
(12) No formal review needed
(13) All references have been identified as normative or informative.
(14) All normative references are in a clear state.
(15) There are no downward normative references
(16) This RFC will update RFC8624, and is listed in all correct places.
(17) The IANA considerations section and the changes are the basis for this
document. The shepherd has done a through review of this section and the focus
of the WGLC was around updating and expanding these IANA registries. The
details for updating the registries are clearly laid out.
(18) No new IANA registries
(19) No Automated checks needed
(20) No Yang