<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 3.4.2) --> version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>

<?rfc docmapping="yes"?>

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13" number="9904" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" obsoletes="8624" updates="9157" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true"> symRefs="true" xml:lang="en" version="3">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process">DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9904"/>
    <author initials="W." surname="Hardaker" fullname="Wes Hardaker">
      <organization>USC/ISI</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ietf@hardakers.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="W." surname="Kumari" fullname="Warren Kumari">
      <organization>Google</organization>
      <address>
        <email>warren@kumari.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="June" day="04"/> month="October"/>
    <area>OPS</area>
    <workgroup>dnsop</workgroup>

<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->

    <abstract>

<?line 60?>
      <t>The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to provide
   authentication of DNS data and proof of non-existence. nonexistence.  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.

<!--[rfced] In the first sentence, should "an IANA registry" be
updated to "the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries"? In the second
sentence, should "this registry" be updated to "these
registries"? If not, should the registry name be included for
clarity?

Also, please clarify "incremental update RFCs". Is the intended
meaning that future extensions can be made under new,
incremental RFCs that update this document?

Current:
   This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical
   source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for
   DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to an IANA registry.

   Future extensions to this registry can be made under new, incremental
   update RFCs.

Perhaps:
   This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical
   source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for
   DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.

   Future extensions to these registries can be made under new,
   incremental RFCs that update this document.
-->

   This document replaces and obsoletes RFC8624 RFC 8624 and moves the
   canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance
   for DNSSEC from RFC8624 RFC 8624 to an IANA registry.

<!--[rfced] We assume that the second instance of "the list" is "the
list of requirements"; therefore, we have updated this sentence
for clarity as shown below. Please let us know if this is
incorrect.

Original:
   This is done both to allow the list of requirements to be more
   easily updated, and to allow the list to be more easily referenced.

Current:
   This is done to allow the list of requirements to be more
   easily updated and referenced.
-->

   This is done to allow the list of requirements to be more easily updated and referenced.

<!--[rfced] FYI: We added that this document "updates RFC 9157" in the
Abstract as shown below.

Original:
   This document also incorporates the revised IANA DNSSEC
   considerations from RFC9157.

Current:
   This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates the revised
   IANA DNSSEC considerations from that RFC.
-->

   Future extensions to this registry can be made under new,
   incremental update RFCs.
   This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates the revised
      IANA DNSSEC considerations from RFC9157.</t>

<t>The that RFC.</t>

<!--[rfced] Should "MUST", "MAY", and "RECOMMENDED" be referred to as
the "recommendation status" or the "DNSSEC delegation, signing,
or validation status" rather than "status" for clarity?

Original:
   The document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED,
   etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; that is the work of
   future documents.

Perhaps:
   This document does not change the recommendation status (MUST, MAY,
   RECOMMENDED, etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is
   the work of future documents.
-->

      <t>This document does not change the status (<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>, <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>, <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, etc.)
   of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is the work of future documents.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>

<?line 78?>

    <section anchor="introduction"><name>Introduction</name>

<t>DNS anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>"DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) (DNSSEC)" <xref target="RFC9364"></xref> target="RFC9364"/> is used to provide
   authentication of DNS data. The DNSSEC signing algorithms are
   defined by various RFCs, including <xref target="RFC4034"></xref>, target="RFC4034"/>, <xref target="RFC4509"></xref>, target="RFC4509"/>, <xref target="RFC5155"></xref>, target="RFC5155"/>,
   <xref target="RFC5702"></xref>, target="RFC5702"/>, <xref target="RFC5933"></xref>, target="RFC5933"/>, <xref target="RFC6605"></xref>, target="RFC6605"/>, and <xref target="RFC8080"></xref>.</t> target="RFC8080"/>.</t>
      <t>To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory to implement"
   DNSKEY "mandatory-to-implement"
   DNS Public Key (DNSKEY) algorithms are defined in <xref target="RFC8624"></xref>. target="RFC8624"/>.  To make the current
   status of the algorithms more easily accessible and understandable,
   and to make future changes to these recommendations easier to
   publish, this document moves the canonical status of the algorithms
   from <xref target="RFC8624"></xref> target="RFC8624"/> to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.
   Additionally, as advice to operators, it adds recommendations for
   deploying and the usage of using these algorithms.</t>
      <t>This is similar to the process used for the "TLS Cipher Suites" registry <xref target="TLS-ciphersuites"></xref> registry, target="TLS-ciphersuites"/>,
  where the canonical list of ciphersuites cipher suites is in the IANA registry, and the
  RFCs reference the IANA registry.</t>
      <section anchor="document-audience"><name>Document anchor="document-audience">
        <name>Document Audience</name>

<t>The

<!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the second IANA registry listed below to
reflect the registry name rather than the registry group for
clarity and consistency.

Original:
   The columns added to the IANA <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA">"DNS "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"</xref> Numbers"
   [DNSKEY-IANA] and <xref target="DS-IANA">"DNSSEC "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)
   Type Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target DNSSEC operators
   and implementers.

Current:
   The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
   [DNSKEY-IANA] and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target
   DNSSEC operators and implementers.
-->

        <t>The columns added to the IANA <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA">"DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"</xref>
   and <xref target="DS-IANA">"Digest Algorithms"</xref> registries target DNSSEC operators and implementers.</t>
        <t>Implementations need to meet both high security expectations as
   well as provide interoperability between various implementations and with
   different versions.</t>
        <t>The field of cryptography evolves continuously.  New, stronger algorithms
   appear, and existing algorithms may be found to be less secure than
   originally thought.  Therefore, algorithm implementation requirements and
   usage guidance need to be updated from time to time in order to reflect the
   new reality, reality and to allow for a smooth transition to more secure algorithms, algorithms
   as well as the deprecation of algorithms deemed to no longer be secure.</t>
        <t>Implementations need to be conservative in the selection of
   algorithms they implement in order to minimize both code complexity
   and the  attack surface.</t>
        <t>The perspective of implementers may differ from that of an operator
   who wishes to deploy and configure DNSSEC with only the safest
   algorithm.  As such such, this document also adds new recommendations
   about which algorithms should be deployed regardless of
   implementation status. In general, it is expected that deployment
   of aging algorithms should generally be reduced before
   implementations stop supporting them.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="updating-algorithm-requirement-levels"><name>Updating anchor="updating-algorithm-requirement-levels">
        <name>Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels</name>
        <t>By the time a DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is made
   mandatory to implement, it should already be available in most
   implementations.  This document defines an IANA registration
   modification to allow future documents to specify the
   implementation recommendations for each algorithm, as the
   recommendation status of each DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is
   expected to change over time.  For example, there is no guarantee
   that newly introduced algorithms will become mandatory to implement
   in the future.  Likewise, published algorithms are continuously
   subjected to cryptographic attack and may become too weak, or even
   be completely broken, and will require deprecation in the future.</t>
        <t>It is expected that the deprecation of an algorithm will be performed
   gradually.  This provides time for implementations to update
   their implemented algorithms while remaining interoperable.  Unless
   there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be
   downgraded from MUST <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> to NOT RECOMMENDED <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14> or MAY, <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>, instead of directly
   from MUST <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> to MUST NOT. <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>.  Similarly, an algorithm that has not been
   mentioned as mandatory to implement is expected to be first introduced
   as RECOMMENDED <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> instead of a MUST.</t> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>.</t>
        <t>Since the effect of using an unknown DNSKEY algorithm is that the
   zone is treated as insecure, it is recommended that algorithms
   which
   that have been downgraded to NOT RECOMMENDED <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14> or lower not be used
   by authoritative nameservers and DNSSEC signers to create new
   DNSKEY's.
   DNSKEYs.  This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms
   decreases over time.  Once an algorithm has reached a sufficiently
   low level of deployment, it can be marked as MUST NOT, <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>, so that
   recursive resolvers can remove support for validating it.</t>
        <t>Validating recursive resolvers are encouraged to retain support for all
   algorithms not marked as MUST NOT.</t> <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="requirements-notation"><name>Requirements notation</name>

<t>The anchor="requirements-notation">
        <name>Requirements Notation</name>
        <t>
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
    NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "OPTIONAL" "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
    described in BCP 14 BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
    when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t> here.
        </t>
        <t><xref target="RFC2119"></xref> target="RFC2119"/> considers the term SHOULD <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> to be equivalent to RECOMMENDED, <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, and
   SHOULD NOT
   <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED. <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>.  This document has
   chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> and NOT RECOMMENDED, <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, as this
   more clearly expresses the recommendations to implementers.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-dnssec-registries"><name>Adding usage anchor="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-dnssec-registries">
      <name>Adding Usage and implementation recommendations Implementation Recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC registries</name> Algorithm Registries</name>
      <t>Per this document, the following columns are being have been added to the
   following
   corresponding DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained with by IANA:</t>

<texttable title="Columns to add
      <table anchor="columns">
        <name>Columns Added to existing Existing DNSSEC algorithm registries" anchor="columns">
      <ttcol align='left'>Registry</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Column added</ttcol>
      <c>DNS Algorithm Registries</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Registry</th>
            <th align="left">Column Added</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
      <c>Use Numbers</td>
            <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Signing</c>
      <c>DNS Signing</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
      <c>Use Numbers</td>
            <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</c>
      <c>DNS Validation</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
      <c>Implement Numbers</td>
            <td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Signing</c>
      <c>DNS Signing</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
      <c>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</c>
      <c>Digest Algorithm</c>
      <c>Use for DNSSEC Delegation</c>
      <c>Digest Algorithm</c>
      <c>Use for DNSSEC Validation</c>
      <c>Digest Algorithm</c>
      <c>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</c>
      <c>Digest Algorithm</c>
      <c>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</c>
</texttable> Numbers</td>
            <td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
            <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Delegation</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
            <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
            <td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
            <td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <section anchor="column-descriptions"><name>Column anchor="column-descriptions">
        <name>Column Descriptions</name>
        <t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm
Numbers" table are:</t> registry is as follows:</t>
        <dl>
          <dt>Use for DNSSEC Signing:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Signing:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
DNSSEC signing software.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
DNSSEC validators.</t>
          </dd>
        </dl>
        <t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithm" table are:</t> Algorithms" registry is as follows:</t>
        <dl>
          <dt>Use for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
validating resolvers.</t>
          </dd>
        </dl>
      </section>
      <section anchor="adding-and-changing-values"><name>Adding anchor="adding-and-changing-values">
        <name>Adding and Changing Values</name>
        <t>Adding a new entry to the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry
   with a recommended value of "MAY" "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing",
   "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or
   "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will be subject to the
   "Specification Required"
   Specification Required policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"></xref> target="RFC8126"/> in order to
   promote continued evolution of DNSSEC algorithms and DNSSEC
   agility.  New entries added through the "Specification Required" Specification Required
   process will have the value of "MAY" "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" for all columns. (Ed note (RFC
   Editor -
	</t>

<!--[rfced] Questions about Section 2.2

a) In this section, may we put the notes that appear in the IANA
registry within <blockquote>? Should lead-in sentences be added
for clarity? If so, please delete provide the desired text.

Perhaps:
   The following note describing the procedures for adding and
   changing values has been added to the "DNS Security Algorithm
   Numbers" registry:

      Note: ...

   The following note has been added to the "Digest Algorithms" registry:

      Note: ...

b) May we update the phrasing of these two paragraphs for ease of
reading as shown below (i.e., make "existing values" singular for
consistency and move the '"any value other than "May"' phrasing up)?
If agreeable, we will ask IANA to make the same updates to the notes
in the corresponding registries.

c) In the first example below, should the "DNS System Algorithm
Numbers" registry be updated to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
registry? Note that this before publication): As registry name also appears in the first
paragraph in Section 2.2.

d) Note: Per IANA's note, we have updated the "DNS System Algorithm
Numbers" registry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry in the
second example shown below.

Original:
   Adding a reminder: new entry to, or changing existing values in, the
   "Specification Required" policy includes "DNS System
   Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for
   DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for
   DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than "MAY" requires a
   Standards Action.

Perhaps:
   Adding a requirement new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the "DNS
   Security Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than
   "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation",
   "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC
   Validation" columns requires Standards Action.

...
Original:
   Adding a
   designated expert new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS System
   Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use
   for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or
   "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to review any other value than
   "MAY" requires a Standards Action.

Perhaps:
   Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the
   "Digest Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than
   "MAY" in the request.)</t> "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC
   Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for
   DNSSEC Validation" columns requires Standards Action.
-->

        <t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in,
   the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for
   DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for
   DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than "MAY"  "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" requires a Standards Action.</t>

<!--Note for RFC Editor:
Ask IANA to remove the quote marks around the
Specification Required policy in the notes in
both registries.
-->
        <t>Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a
   recommended value of "MAY" "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation",
   "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation",
   or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns SHALL <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> follow the
   "Specification Required"
	Specification Required policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"></xref>.</t> target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
        <t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in,
   the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" "Digest Algorithms" registry for the "Use for
   DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for
   DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than "MAY"  "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" requires a Standards Action.</t>
        <t>If an item is not marked as "RECOMMENDED", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", it does not necessarily
   mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either
   has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited
   applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.</t>
        <t>Only values of "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", and "NOT
   RECOMMENDED" "<bcp14>NOT
   RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" may be placed into the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and
   "Use for DNSSEC Validation" columns.  Only values of "MAY",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>",
   "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" may be
   placed into the "Implement for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for
   DNSSEC Validation" columns.  Note that a value of "MUST" "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>" is not an
   allowed value for the two "Use for" columns.</t>
        <t>The following sections state the initial values to be that have been populated
   into these rows. columns. The values in the "Implement for" column values columns are transcribed
   from <xref target="RFC8624"></xref>. target="RFC8624"/>. The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as
   those in the "Implement for" values columns since the general interpretation to date
   indicates they have been treated as values for both
   "implementation"
   "use" and "use". "implementation". Note that the value in the "Use for"
   columns values use "RECOMMENDED"
   column is "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" when the value in the corresponding "Implement
   for" column is a "MUST" value. "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>".  We note that the values for
   "Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future as
   implementations generally precede deployments.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="dns-system-algorithm-numbers-column-values"><name>DNS System anchor="dns-system-algorithm-numbers-column-values">
      <name>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Column Values</name>

<t>Initial

<!--[rfced] Section 3. Since there are multiple registries under the
"Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry
group, we added the registry name for clarity as shown below.

Also, to avoid using "recommendation" twice, do you prefer option A,
which matches the title of Table 2, or option B?  Note that there is
similar text in Section 4 that we would also apply this update to.

Original:
   Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
   recommendations for the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC)
   Algorithm Numbers" are shown in Table 2.</t>

<t>When 2.

Perhaps A:
   Initial values for the use and implementation recommendation
   columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry
   under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers"
   registry group are shown in Table 2.

or
Perhaps B:
   Initial use and implementation recommendation columns in the
   "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "Domain
   Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry
   group are shown in Table 2.
-->

      <t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
   recommendations for the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group are shown in <xref target="algtable"/>.</t>

<!--[rfced] Should "use" be "Use for" and "column" be "columns"? If
not, please clarify which "use" column this is referring to. Note
that this sentence occurs in Sections 3 and 4.

Original:
   When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column,
   operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.

Perhaps:
   When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "Use for" columns,
   operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.
-->

      <t>When there are multiple
   <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> algorithms in the "use" column, operators should choose
      the best algorithm according to local policy.</t>

<texttable title="Initial

<!--[rfced] Questions about Table 2

a) In Table 2, some of the values in the "Use for" and
"Implement for" columns are different than what is listed in "DNS
Security Algorithm Numbers" registry (specifically, see numbers
5, 7, and 12). Should Table 2 be updated to match the IANA
registry as shown below, or should the IANA registry be updated
to match Table 2?

b) In Table 2, numbers 17, 23, 253, and 254 use terms from the
Description column in the registry whereas the rest of the numbers use
terms from the Mnemonic column. Should these numbers be updated to use
the mnemonic terms for consistency as shown below, or do you prefer
otherwise?

Registry URL: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/>

Original:

 5   RSASHA1              NOT RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|NOT RECOMMENDED|MUST
 7   RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1   NOT RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|NOT RECOMMENDED|MUST
 12  ECC-GOST             MUST NOT       | MAY       |MUST NOT       |MAY
 17  SM2/SM3              ...
 23  GOST R
     34.10-2012
 253 private algorithm
 254 private algorithm OID

Perhaps (to match the IANA registry):

 5   RSASHA1              MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED |NOT RECOMMENDED |MUST
 7   RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1   MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED |NOT RECOMMENDED |MUST
 12  ECC-GOST             MUST NOT |MUST NOT    |MUST NOT        |MUST NOT
 17  SM2SM3               ...
 23  ECC-GOST12
 253 PRIVATEDNS
 254 PRIVATEOID
-->

      <table anchor="algtable">
        <name>Initial Values for the DNS System Security Algorithm Numbers columns" anchor="algtable">
      <ttcol align='left'>N</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Mnemonics</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Signing</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Signing</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
      <c>1</c>
      <c>RSAMD5</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>3</c>
      <c>DSA</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>5</c>
      <c>RSASHA1</c>
      <c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>6</c>
      <c>DSA-NSEC3-SHA1</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>7</c>
      <c>RSASHA1-NSEC3- SHA1</c>
      <c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>8</c>
      <c>RSASHA256</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>10</c>
      <c>RSASHA512</c>
      <c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>12</c>
      <c>ECC-GOST</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>13</c>
      <c>ECDSAP256SHA256</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>14</c>
      <c>ECDSAP384SHA384</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>15</c>
      <c>ED25519</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>16</c>
      <c>ED448</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>17</c>
      <c>SM2/SM3</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>23</c>
      <c>GOST Registry Columns</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">No.</th>
            <th align="left">Mnemonics</th>
            <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Signing</th>
            <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</th>
            <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Signing</th>
            <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">1</td>
            <td align="left">RSAMD5</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">3</td>
            <td align="left">DSA</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">5</td>
            <td align="left">RSASHA1</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">6</td>
            <td align="left">DSA-NSEC3-SHA1</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">7</td>
            <td align="left">RSASHA1-NSEC3- SHA1</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">8</td>
            <td align="left">RSASHA256</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">10</td>
            <td align="left">RSASHA512</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">12</td>
            <td align="left">ECC-GOST</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">13</td>
            <td align="left">ECDSAP256SHA256</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">14</td>
            <td align="left">ECDSAP384SHA384</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">15</td>
            <td align="left">ED25519</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">16</td>
            <td align="left">ED448</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">17</td>
            <td align="left">SM2/SM3</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">23</td>
            <td align="left">GOST R 34.10-2012</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>253</c>
      <c>private algorithm</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>254</c>
      <c>private 34.10-2012</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">253</td>
            <td align="left">private algorithm</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">254</td>
            <td align="left">private algorithm OID</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
</texttable> OID</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
    <section anchor="dnssec-delegation-signer-ds-resource-record-rr-type-digest-algorithms-column-values"><name>DNSSEC anchor="dnssec-delegation-signer-ds-resource-record-rr-type-digest-algorithms-column-values">

<!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the titles of Section 4 and Table 3
to reflect the registry name rather than the registry group name
for clarity and consistency as shown below.

Original (Section 4):
   4.  DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
       Algorithms Column Values

Current:
   4.  Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values

...
Original (Table 3 title):
   Initial values for the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS)
   Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns

Current:
   Initial Values for the Digest Algorithms Registry Columns
-->

      <name>Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values</name>
      <t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
   recommendations for the "Digest Algorithms" registry under the "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry group are shown in Table 3.</t> <xref target="dstable"/>.</t>
      <t>When there are multiple RECOMMENDED <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> algorithms in the "use" column,
   operators should choose the best algorithm according to local
   policy.</t>

<texttable title="Initial
   <table anchor="dstable">

<!--[rfced] We note differences between Table 3 and the "Digest
Algorithms" registry. Should this document be updated to match
the registry as shown below, or should the registry be updated to
match this document?

We also note that this document is listed as a reference for values
128-252 and 253-254. Should this document be listed as a reference for
any other values in the registry?

Registry URL: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/>

Original:

   0    NULL
       (CDS only)     MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT

   3    GOST R
        34.11-94      MUST NOT | MAY      | MUST NOT | MAY

Perhaps (to match the IANA registry):

   0   Reserved       MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT

   3   GOST R
       34.11-94       MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT
-->

        <name>Initial Values for the  DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns" anchor="dstable">
      <ttcol align='left'>Number</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Mnemonics</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Delegation</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
      <c>0</c>
      <c>NULL Registry Columns</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="left">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Delegation</th>
            <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</th>
            <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</th>
            <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">0</td>
            <td align="left">NULL (CDS only)</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>1</c>
      <c>SHA-1</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>2</c>
      <c>SHA-256</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>MUST</c>
      <c>3</c>
      <c>GOST only)</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">1</td>
            <td align="left">SHA-1</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">2</td>
            <td align="left">SHA-256</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">3</td>
            <td align="left">GOST R 34.11-94</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MUST NOT</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>4</c>
      <c>SHA-384</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>RECOMMENDED</c>
      <c>5</c>
      <c>GOST 34.11-94</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">4</td>
            <td align="left">SHA-384</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">5</td>
            <td align="left">GOST R 34.11-2012</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>6</c>
      <c>SM3</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
      <c>MAY</c>
</texttable> 34.11-2012</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">6</td>
            <td align="left">SM3</td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
            <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security of cryptographic systems depends on both the strength of
   both the cryptographic algorithms chosen and the strength of the keys used
   with those algorithms.  The security also depends on the engineering
   of the protocol used by the system to ensure that there are no non-
   cryptographic ways to bypass the security of the overall system.</t>
      <t>This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic algorithms
   for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of
   "mandatory to implement"
   "mandatory-to-implement" algorithms.  The  In this document, the algorithms identified in this
   document as "MUST" <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> or "RECOMMENDED" <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> to implement are not known to be broken at
   the current time, and cryptographic research so far leads us to believe that
   they are likely to remain adequately secure unless significant and
   unexpected discovery is made. However, this isn't necessarily forever, and
   it is expected that future documents will be issued from time to time to
   reflect the current best practices in this area.</t>
      <t>Retiring an algorithm too soon would result in a zone signed with
   the retired algorithm being downgraded to the equivalent of an
   unsigned zone.  Therefore, algorithm deprecation must be done only
   after careful consideration and ideally slowly when possible.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="operational-considerations"><name>Operational anchor="operational-considerations">
      <name>Operational Considerations</name>
      <t>DNSKEY algorithm rollover in a live zone is a complex process.  See
   <xref target="RFC6781"></xref> target="RFC6781"/> and <xref target="RFC7583"></xref> target="RFC7583"/> for guidelines on how to perform algorithm
   rollovers.</t>
      <t>DS algorithm rollover in a live zone is also a complex process.
   Upgrading an algorithm at the same time as rolling to the new Key
   Signing Key (KSK) key will lead to DNSSEC validation failures, and
   users MUST <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> upgrade the DS algorithm first before rolling to a new
   KSK.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations"><name>IANA anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>

<t>The IANA is requested to update
      <t>IANA has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref> target="DNSKEY-IANA"/> and "Digest Algorithms" <xref target="DS-IANA"></xref> target="DS-IANA"/> registries
  according to the following sections.</t> sections that follow.</t>
      <section anchor="update-to-the-dns-security-algorithm-numbers-registry"><name>Update anchor="update-to-the-dns-security-algorithm-numbers-registry">
        <name>Update to the "DNS DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry</name>

<t>This document requests IANA update Numbers Registry</name>
        <t>IANA has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm
  Numbers" registry (<xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref>) registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/> with the following
  additional columns:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  columns and has populated these columns with the values from <xref target="algtable"/> of this document:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>"Use for DNSSEC Signing"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>"Implement for DNSSEC Signing"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</list></t>

<t>These values must be populated using values from Table 2
          </li>
        </ul>

<!--[rfced] In Section 7.1, we made the following text into a bulleted
list to match Section 7.2. We also updated "Section 2" to
"Section 2.2" in both sections. Please let us know of this
  document.</t>

<t>Additionally, any
objection to these changes.

Original:
   Additionally, the registration policy for the <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref> [DNSKEY-IANA]
   registry should match the text describing the requirements in this
   document, and Section 2's note concerning values not marked as
   "RECOMMENDED" should be added to the registry.</t>

<t>This registry.

   This document should be listed as a reference to the "DNS Security
   Algorithm Numbers" registry.

Current:
   Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS Security
   Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA]:

   *  Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
      Specification Required.

   *  Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked as
      "RECOMMENDED" per Section 2.2.

   *  Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
-->

      <t>Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS Security
   Algorithm Numbers" registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/>:</t>
  <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
      Specification Required.
    </li>
    <li>Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked as
      "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" per <xref target="adding-and-changing-values"/>.
    </li>
    <li>Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
    </li>
  </ul>

 <!--
<t>Additionally, the registration policy for the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/> should match the text describing the requirements in this document,
  and <xref target="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-dnssec-registries"/>'s note concerning values not marked as "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>"
  should be added to the registry.</t>
        <t>This document has been listed as a reference for the "DNS Security
  Algorithm Numbers" registry.</t>
-->
      </section>
      <section anchor="update-to-the-digest-algorithms-registry"><name>Update anchor="update-to-the-digest-algorithms-registry">
        <name>Update to the "Digest Algorithms" registry</name>

<t>This document requests IANA update Digest Algorithms Registry</name>
        <t>IANA has updated the "Digest Algorithms" registry
  (<xref target="DS-IANA"></xref>) registry
  <xref target="DS-IANA"/> with the following additional columns:</t>

<t><list style="symbols"> columns and has populated these columns with the values from <xref target="dstable"/> of this document:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>"Use for DNSSEC Delegation"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>"Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</list></t>

<t>These values must be populated using values from Table 3 of this
  document.</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Update
          </li>
        </ul>
	<t>Additionally, IANA has completed the registration policy following actions for the <xref target="DS-IANA"></xref> "Digest Algorithms" registry <xref target="DS-IANA"/>:
	</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or Specification Required.</t>
          </li>
	  <li>Added a note to
match the text describing update requirements above</t>
  <t>Mark registry that describes the values not marked as
      "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" per <xref target="adding-and-changing-values"/>.
    </li>
	  <li>Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
	  </li>
          <li>
            <t>Marked values 128 - 252 128-252 as "Reserved"</t>
  <t>Mark "Reserved".</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use"</t>
  <t>Delete Use".</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry</t>
</list></t>

<t>Section 2's registry.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
    <!--    <t><xref target="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-dnssec-registries"/>'s note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>"
  should be added to the registry.</t>
        <t>This document should be listed as a reference to the "Digest Algorithms" registry.</t> registry.</t>-->
      </section>
    </section>

  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9157.xml"/>
        <reference anchor="DNSKEY-IANA" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers">
          <front>
            <title>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IANA</organization>
            </author>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="DS-IANA" target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types">
          <front>
            <title>DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IANA</organization>
            </author>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4034.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4509.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5155.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5702.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5933.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6605.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6781.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7583.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8080.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8624.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9364.xml"/>
        <reference anchor="TLS-ciphersuites" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters">
          <front>
            <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IANA</organization>
            </author>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  <section anchor="acknowledgments"><name>Acknowledgments</name> anchor="acknowledgments" numbered="false">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored
      by Paul
  Wouters and Ondrej Sury.</t> <contact fullname="Paul Wouters"/> and <contact fullname="Ondrej
      Sury"/>.</t>
      <t>The content of this document was heavily discussed by participants of
      the DNSOP working group. Working Group.  The authors appreciate the thoughtfulness of
      the many opinions expressed by working group participants that all
      helped shaped this document. We thank Paul
  Hoffman and Paul Wouters <contact fullname="Paul Hoffman"/>
      and <contact fullname="Paul Wouters"/> for their contributed text, text and
      also
  Nabeel Cocker, Shumon Huque, Nicolai Leymann, S Moonesamy, Magnus Nyström,
  Peter Thomassen, Stefan Ubbink, and Loganaden Velvindron <contact fullname="Nabeel Cocker"/>, <contact fullname="Shumon
      Huque"/>, <contact fullname="Nicolai Leymann"/>, <contact fullname="S.
      Moonesamy"/>, <contact fullname="Magnus Nyström"/>, <contact
      fullname="Peter Thomassen"/>, <contact fullname="Stefan Ubbink"/>, and
      <contact fullname="Loganaden Velvindron"/> for their reviews and
      comments.</t>
    </section>

  </middle>

  <back>

<references title='References' anchor="sec-combined-references">

    <references title='Normative References' anchor="sec-normative-references">

<reference anchor="RFC2119">
  <front>
    <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
    <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
    <date month="March" year="1997"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8126">
  <front>
    <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
    <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
    <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
    <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
    <date month="June" year="2017"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not
  </back>

<!--[rfced] Terminology

FYI: We have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
      <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing updated the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications following terms to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that form on the provided guidance right for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation consistency.
Please let us know of a registry.</t>
      <t>This is any objection.

  ciphersuite -> cipher suite (to match the third edition of this document; it obsoletes "TLS Cipher Suites" registry)
  non-existence -> nonexistence (per RFC 5226.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8174">
  <front>
    <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
    <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
    <date month="May" year="2017"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words 8624)
-->

<!-- [rfced] FYI:  We have the defined special meanings.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9157">
  <front>
    <title>Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC</title>
    <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
    <date month="December" year="2021"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC algorithms and resource records added to IANA registries. It updates RFC 6014 to include hash algorithms for Delegation Signer (DS) records and NextSECure version 3 (NSEC3) parameters (for Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence). It also updates RFCs 5155 and 6014, which have requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updates RFC 8624 to clarify the implementation recommendation related to the algorithms described in RFCs that are not on the standards track. The rationale for these changes is to bring the requirements for DS records and hash algorithms used in NSEC3 in line with the requirements for all other DNSSEC algorithms.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9157"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9157"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="DNSKEY-IANA" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xml#dns-sec-alg-numbers-1">
  <front>
    <title>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</title>
    <author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <date year="n.d."/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="DS-IANA" target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types">
  <front>
    <title>Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms</title>
    <author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <date year="n.d."/>
  </front>
</reference>

    </references>

    <references title='Informative References' anchor="sec-informative-references">

<reference anchor="RFC4034">
  <front>
    <title>Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions</title>
    <author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
    <author fullname="R. Austein" initials="R." surname="Austein"/>
    <author fullname="M. Larson" initials="M." surname="Larson"/>
    <author fullname="D. Massey" initials="D." surname="Massey"/>
    <author fullname="S. Rose" initials="S." surname="Rose"/>
    <date month="March" year="2005"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of resource records and protocol modifications that provide source authentication for the DNS. This document defines the public key (DNSKEY), delegation signer (DS), resource record digital signature (RRSIG), and authenticated denial of existence (NSEC) resource records. The purpose and format of each resource record is described in detail, and an example of each resource record is given.</t>
      <t>This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all updates to RFC 2535. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4034"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4034"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4509">
  <front>
    <title>Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)</title>
    <author fullname="W. Hardaker" initials="W." surname="Hardaker"/>
    <date month="May" year="2006"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies how to use the SHA-256 digest type in DNS Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs). DS records, when stored in a parent zone, point to DNSKEYs in a child zone. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4509"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4509"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5155">
  <front>
    <title>DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence</title>
    <author fullname="B. Laurie" initials="B." surname="Laurie"/>
    <author fullname="G. Sisson" initials="G." surname="Sisson"/>
    <author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
    <author fullname="D. Blacka" initials="D." surname="Blacka"/>
    <date month="March" year="2008"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>The Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Extensions introduced the NSEC resource record (RR) for authenticated denial of existence. This document introduces an alternative resource record, NSEC3, which similarly provides authenticated denial of existence. However, it also provides measures against zone enumeration and permits gradual expansion of delegation-centric zones. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5155"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5155"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5702">
  <front>
    <title>Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC</title>
    <author fullname="J. Jansen" initials="J." surname="Jansen"/>
    <date month="October" year="2009"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes how to produce RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 DNSKEY and RRSIG resource records for use in the Domain Name System Security Extensions (RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035). [STANDARDS TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5702"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5702"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5933">
  <front>
    <title>Use following abbreviation
per Section 3.6 of GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC</title>
    <author fullname="V. Dolmatov" initials="V." role="editor" surname="Dolmatov"/>
    <author fullname="A. Chuprina" initials="A." surname="Chuprina"/>
    <author fullname="I. Ustinov" initials="I." surname="Ustinov"/>
    <date month="July" year="2010"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes how to produce digital signatures and hash functions using the GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms for DNSKEY, RRSIG, RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review this and DS resource records, for use each
expansion in the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC).</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5933"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5933"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6605">
  <front>
    <title>Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC</title>
    <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
    <author fullname="W.C.A. Wijngaards" initials="W.C.A." surname="Wijngaards"/>
    <date month="April" year="2012"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes how carefully to specify Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) keys and signatures in DNS Security (DNSSEC). It lists curves of different sizes and uses the SHA-2 family of hashes for signatures. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6605"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6605"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6781">
  <front>
    <title>DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2</title>
    <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." surname="Kolkman"/>
    <author fullname="W. Mekking" initials="W." surname="Mekking"/>
    <author fullname="R. Gieben" initials="R." surname="Gieben"/>
    <date month="December" year="2012"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes a set of practices for operating the ensure correctness.

  DNS with security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone administrators deploying DNSSEC.</t>
      <t>The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and signatures in the DNS. It discusses issues of key generation, key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies.</t>
      <t>This document obsoletes RFC 4641, as it covers more operational ground and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and the DNSSEC operations.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6781"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6781"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC7583">
  <front>
    <title>DNSSEC Public Key Rollover Timing Considerations</title>
    <author fullname="S. Morris" initials="S." surname="Morris"/>
    <author fullname="J. Ihren" initials="J." surname="Ihren"/>
    <author fullname="J. Dickinson" initials="J." surname="Dickinson"/>
    <author fullname="W. Mekking" initials="W." surname="Mekking"/>
    <date month="October" year="2015"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes the issues surrounding (DNSKEY)
-->

<!-- [rfced] Please review the timing "Inclusive Language" portion of events in the rolling of a key in a DNSSEC-secured zone. It presents timelines for the key rollover and explicitly identifies the relationships between the various parameters affecting the process.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7583"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7583"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8080">
  <front>
    <title>Edwards-Curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSEC</title>
    <author fullname="O. Sury" initials="O." surname="Sury"/>
    <author fullname="R. Edmonds" initials="R." surname="Edmonds"/>
    <date month="February" year="2017"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes how to specify Edwards-curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) keys and signatures in DNS Security (DNSSEC). It uses EdDSA with the choice of two curves: Ed25519 online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and Ed448.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8080"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8080"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8624">
  <front>
    <title>Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC</title>
    <author fullname="P. Wouters" initials="P." surname="Wouters"/>
    <author fullname="O. Sury" initials="O." surname="Sury"/>
    <date month="June" year="2019"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>The DNSSEC protocol makes use let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of various cryptographic algorithms this nature typically
result in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of nonexistence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there more precise language, which is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance helpful for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes RFC 6944.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8624"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8624"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9364">
  <front>
    <title>DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)</title>
    <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
    <date month="February" year="2023"/>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called "DNSSEC") that are specified in RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035, as well as a handful of others. One purpose is to introduce all of the RFCs in one place so readers.

Note that the reader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC. This document does our script did not update flag any of those RFCs. A second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for origin authentication of DNS data is the best current practice. A third purpose is to provide a single reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="237"/>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9364"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9364"/>
</reference>

<reference anchor="TLS-ciphersuites" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4">
  <front>
    <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters</title>
    <author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <date year="n.d."/>
  </front>
</reference>

    </references>

</references>

<?line 480?>

<section anchor="changelog"><name>ChangeLog</name>

<t>(RFC Editor: please remove words in particular, but this ChangeLog section upon publication.)</t>

<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-10-to-ietf-11"><name>Changes from ietf-10 to ietf-11:</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Many more comments to address IESG reviews
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-09-to-ietf-10"><name>Changes from ietf-09 to ietf-10:</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Many comments addressed from IESG reviews
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-08-to-ietf-09"><name>Changes from ietf-08 to ietf-09</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Added missing alogirthms (SM2/SM3 and GOST R 34.10-2012)
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-07-to-ietf-08"><name>Changes from ietf-07 to ietf-08</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Handle issues raised during IETF last call:
    * updates 9157
    * other nit fixes
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-06-to-ietf-07"><name>Changes from ietf-06 to ietf-07</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* changed to a standards track document
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-05-to-ietf-06"><name>Changes from ietf-05 to ietf-06</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Address Eric Vyncke (RAD!) AD review comments.
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-03-to-ietf-05"><name>Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-05</name>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Updated "entry requirements" to should
still be "Specification Required".
* Marked values 128 - 252 as "Reserved" in "Digest Algorithms" reviewed as
break-glass mechanism in case we get a flood of these. To align with the
"DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry (that reserves 123 - ...)
* Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use" in "Digest
Algorithms"
* Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the "Digest
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-02-to-ietf-03"><name>Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03</name>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Fixed the reference in the Abstract (no links in Abstracts)</t>
  <t>Added Updates: to the header.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-01-to-ietf-02"><name>Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02</name>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Changed the MUST values in the tables for the Use columns to
RECOMMENDED based on discussions on the dnsop mailing list.</t>
  <t>Other minor wording and formatting changes</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-00-to-ietf-01"><name>Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01</name>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Only NIT fixing</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-hardaker-04-to-ietf-00"><name>Changes from hardaker-04 to ietf-00</name>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Just a draft name and number change.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-03-to-04"><name>Changes from -03 to -04</name>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Changed the columns being added from 2 per table to 4, based on
discussion within the dnsop working group mailing list.  This was
a fairly major set of changes.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="changes-since-rfc8624"><name>Changes since RFC8624</name>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>The primary purpose of this revision is to introduce the new
columns to existing registries.  It makes no changes to the
previously defined values.</t>
  <t>Merged in RFC9157 updates.</t>
  <t>Set authors as Wes Hardaker, Warren Kumari.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
</section>

  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source: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 best practice.
-->

</rfc>