Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dnskey-registry-fixes-01 editorials

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>]

At 3:54 PM +0100 10/30/09, Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= wrote:
>Hello again,
>in an attempt to quickly follow up to the most recent versions of
>the active DNS related I-Ds before IETF, I arrived at your draft,
>    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnskey-registry-fixes-01.

Er, draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-01

>
>I fully agree with that document and support it being forwarded
>quickly for publication as an RFC.
>
>
>One semi-technical question:
>
>Should the Reference to "FIPS 180-1" in the registry entry #3
>better be updated to the current version, FIPS 180-3 ?
>
>Similar for  "FIPS 186"  -->  "FIPS 186-3"  ?

As long as the technical details of the algorithms has not changed between versions of FIPS document, we should always refer to the -n version. This is because NIST usually names the first version without a number. Worse yet, NIST does not maintain the URLs for the old documents very well.

>Should references to  FIPS 186[-3]  and  FIPS 180[-3]  be added
>to this section?
>
>For completeness:
>[I-D.ogud-iana-protocol-maintenance-words]  now published as RFC 5702!

No, the references for this doc should only be things that appeared outside of the proposed registry example.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium