On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 02:11:13PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I have read draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard-00. > > I think that the actual words and organization of the document could use a > bit of polish, but fundamentally it does the right thing, and sends the right > message. > > I would like to ask the WG to adopt this document, we can sort out the > wording afterwards, and spend (priority) WG time on this document. > > I would very much like to point to a clear statement when I see IKEv1 being > used in the field for no good reason (except that nobody thought about IKEv2). > If it has to be in the form of an RFC, so be it: I'd like to be able to say > to a manager, "You are not RFCZZYY compliant", and I'd like this to get > into a variety of security audit lists. > > The document likely has likely little technical impact, and I think we should > acknowledge that this is a policy statement. > That's okay with me, if it it is okay with the IESG. > If there is another way to get the same impact, I'm open to hearing it. > > The datatracker page for RFC2409 already says: > Type RFC - Proposed Standard (November 1998; No errata) > Obsoleted by RFC 4306 > Updated by RFC 4109 > > But, I think that the goal is to mark these documents as Historic as well. > I didn't see that action in the document specifically (maybe I missed it). > Many updates to the IANA registries, which we could do in other ways, I think. > > As I understand it, marking something as Historic is something the IESG can > do without publishing a document. The changes to the IANA registries I'm > less clear about, but I believe it could also be done without a document.
To move to historic, there should be some form of document (per https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/) but it need not be published as an RFC. The past few times we've done this everyone involved had to think for a while to remember what the right way to wrangle the wording in the published RFC should be, but we can worry about that later if we need to. -Ben _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
