Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 need not be published as an RFC.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.
> Historic really means "no longer used", which we all hope would be the
> case for IKEv1, but sadly is not. Seeing how a billion android devices
> only support IKEv1, I think "historic" is really not the correct action
> at this point.
I don't think that the IETF has any other levers.
Marking it as historic does mess up procurement mechanisms, if they actually
pay attention to that.
I know that the Google Android team are aware of the lack, but it seems
that it is not a priority. This is sad, but the IETF works with carrots, not
sticks.
But, to be clear: I'd like the WG to adopt your document, and I'd like it to
be the basis for *something*.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
