Forbid deprecated algorithms in DNSSEC data

[gbrodman]

This is similar to PR #3069 but for the algorithms themselves rather than the digest data. This forbids algorithms, that, according to RFC 9904, should not be used.

---

This change is 

[CydeWeys]

@CydeWeys made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 30 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on gbrodman and ptkach).

---

core/src/test/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainUpdateFlowTest.java line 992 at r1 (raw file):

    assertAboutEppExceptions().that(thrown).marshalsToXml();
  }

What happens if there is existing invalid algorithm DS data on a domain and you make an unrelated domain update? There should be a test for this.

[gbrodman]

@gbrodman made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 30 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on CydeWeys and ptkach).

---

core/src/test/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainUpdateFlowTest.java line 992 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, CydeWeys (Ben McIlwain) wrote…

What happens if there is existing invalid algorithm DS data on a domain and you make an unrelated domain update? There should be a test for this.

sure -- we can do the same thing that we did for contacts and forbid any update flows if we have "bad" dsdata

[CydeWeys]

@CydeWeys made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 30 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on gbrodman and ptkach).

---

core/src/test/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainUpdateFlowTest.java line 992 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, gbrodman wrote…

sure -- we can do the same thing that we did for contacts and forbid any update flows if we have "bad" dsdata

Is that what we actually want to do though, or is that going to cause more customer inquiries? What's the overall migration/messaging strategy on this?

[gbrodman]

@gbrodman made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 30 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on CydeWeys and ptkach).

---

core/src/test/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainUpdateFlowTest.java line 992 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, CydeWeys (Ben McIlwain) wrote…

Is that what we actually want to do though, or is that going to cause more customer inquiries? What's the overall migration/messaging strategy on this?

We haven't discussed the precise messaging yet, but i think it seems pretty straightforward to do the same thing we did with contact removals.

[CydeWeys]

@CydeWeys made 1 comment and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: 0 of 30 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on ptkach).