Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot and pointed to your review. Alissa > On Apr 6, 2019, at 5:16 AM, Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2019-04-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-27 > IESG Telechat date: 2019-04-11 > > Summary: This document updates the DNSKEY, DS, and CDS algorithm > recommendations for use in DNSSEC based on current thinking in cryptography. > This document is Ready with Nits as a Standards Track publication. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Page 2, Section 1.1, 2nd sentence: append a comma after "New". > > Page 3, Section 1.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "recommendation cannot > be recommended" to "they cannot be recommended". > > Page 3, Section 1.2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "recommendation" to > "intent". > > Page 3, Section 1.2, 6th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "DNSKEY's" to > "DNSKEYs". > > Page 3, Section 1.2, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence: indicate for clarity where > this marking will be done (essentially in a new version of this RFC). > > Page 4, Section 1.3: In general, it would be nice if there were references in > the paragraphs following the table that point to the research that led to the > statements of strength or lack of strength of the algorithms. Then again, this > isn't an academic paper, so references aren't strictly required either. While > I mostly (but not completely) agree with the notes on the individual > algorithms, the average reader is left to take the statements as gospel rather > than being able to make an informed decision on the current state of > cryptography. > > Page 4, Section 1.3, 3rd sentence: delete a redundant "from". > > Page 5, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "cryptographics" to "cryptographic". > > Page 5, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "that" to "who". > > Page 5, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "GOST". I'm generally > in favor of dropping the definite article of algorithm abbreviations. If you > prefer not to do so, then use the definitive article consistently throughout > the document. > > Page 5, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence: insert "the" before "deterministic". > > Page 5, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519". Change > "ED448" to "Ed448". Only make these two changes if you are referring to these > algorithms by the names given to them by their authors as opposed to the > mnemonics used within DNSSEC. (This statement also applies to the Ed25519 > comment below.) Insert "the" before "Edwards". > > Page 5, 8th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "the" before "EdDSA". Delete > "algorithm" after "EdDSA". > > Page 5, 8th paragraph, 4th sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519". > > Page 6, Section 3.2, 2nd paragraph: insert "the" before "industry". Change "to > move to" to "toward". Delete "the" before "ECDSAP256SHA256 ". Insert "the" > before "RECOMMENDED". Change "RSA based" to "RSA-based". > > Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 1st fragment: change "for" to "regarding". > Append "are summarized in the table below." to the fragment. > > Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append "recommendations" > after "These". > > Page 6, 1st paragraph after table: append a period to the end of the sentence. > > Page 6, 2nd paragraph after the table: append a period to the end of the > sentence. > > Page 6, 4th paragraph after the table, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "GOST". > > Page 6, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: change second "SHA-384" to "SHA-256". > > Page 7, Section 3.4, 1st sentence: change the period at the end of a sentence > to a colon. Join the following sentence to the first sentence after deleting > "The" before "SHA-256" and insert "the" before "RECOMMENDED". > > Page 7, Section 4: this section has not been reviewed since it is to be deleted > by the RFC Editor prior to publication. > > Page 8, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: consider appending "(in the > cryptographic sense)" after "broken". > > Page 9, Section 8, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete an extraneous space > after "I.". Append a comma after "Wouters". > > Page 9, Section 8, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "Hoffman". "Imminent" > in this sentence is probably not the word you want in document at time of > publication, although it's fine to prod the named individuals into submitted > input prior to publication. > > Page 9, Section 8, 3rd paragraph: change "the daylight" to "light". > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
