Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

2017-11-22 Thread Daniel Migault
IESG approval seems also fine to me. Hopefully ciphers may not be used at the time they are deprecated. Yours, Daniel On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > Funny I never thought about going down, but I guess we should ;) I think > the premise we want here is

Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

2017-11-22 Thread Sean Turner
Funny I never thought about going down, but I guess we should ;) I think the premise we want here is hard to get a Yes (whether new or upgrade) and somewhat easier than that to go down but it can’t be done in the dark so 4 would work. This kind of works out because people are motivated to get

Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

2017-11-21 Thread Stephen Farrell
On 21/11/17 23:39, Martin Thomson wrote: > IESG action seems appropriate for both. I'm fairly sure the WG discussed the No->Yes (or new Yes) before and wanted standards action for that. I'd guess that changing that might take some discussion. (FWIW, I'd not support that change myself but

Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

2017-11-21 Thread Martin Thomson
IESG action seems appropriate for both. If we could include guidance around this (values with Yes should only include those for which the community currently has consensus are worth having available at the current time), tat would be awesome. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Farrell

[TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

2017-11-21 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hiya, I just posted a draft shepherd write-up for this [1]. (The write-up text was mostly written by Sean as it happens - for which he has my thanks as it's boring as hell to do that:-) There are nits but only one substantive question that I don't recall the WG discussing before (but maybe I'm