Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6944 (4932)
Petr Špaček <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:13:57 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Organization | CZ.NIC |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The reference right in the entry would be helpful. I'm sorry for not being clear. Petr =A9pa=E8ek @ CZ.NIC On 02/13/2017 05:42 PM, Rose, Scott wrote: > A reference to RFC 6944 to the whole registry, or the entry for RSA/MD5? > There is a ref for the whole table, but not the entry. If this a > proposed change to the entry, I agree with the change. > = > Scott > = > = > = > On 12 Feb 2017, at 8:47, RFC Errata System wrote: > = >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6944, >> "Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm >> Implementation Status". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D6944&eid=3D4932 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Petr Spacek <[email protected]> >> >> Section: 3 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic >> algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an >> IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers. >> Because this document establishes the implementation status of every >> algorithm, it has been listed as a reference for the registry itself. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic >> algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an >> IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers. >> Because this document establishes the implementation status of every >> algorithm, it has been listed as a reference for the registry itself. >> >> Given significance of status change of RSAMD5 algorithm, a reference >> to this RFC should be added to the registry. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> "RSAMD5 has an implementation status of Must Not Implement because of >> known weaknesses in MD5." >> >> This is very important. An additional reference would lower likelihood >> that DNS Implementors will overlook the important piece of information. >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC6944 (draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) >> DNSKEY Algorithm Implementation Status >> Publication Date : April 2013 >> Author(s) : S. Rose >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : DNS Extensions >> Area : Internet >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG > = > = > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Scott Rose, NIST > [email protected] > ph: +1-301-975-8439 > Google Voice: +1-571-249-3671 _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext