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 maybe others would.) If the No->Yes stuff doesn't change I'll take you as arguing for a (4) below but correct me if that's wrong. Cheers, S. > 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 awesom> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> 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 forgetting). >> >> What is needed to change from Recommended == Yes down to >> Recommended == No? Does that need a standards action (e.g. >> with an RFC) or just IETF review or even maybe just IESG >> action? >> >> In the current draft write-up I've put in the first as a >> placeholder, as that's symmetric with the No->Yes change but >> I think IESG action is probably ok if the WG wanted that as >> the IESG probably won't go crazy and will likely do as the >> WG want in such cases. If the WG do want to write a specific >> foo-no-longer-recommended RFC it can do that in all cases, >> and of course Yes->No transitions could be documented in an >> RFC that documents a "replacement" Yes entry. >> >> So, unless this was already discussed....answers on a postcard >> please - which'd we like: >> >> (1) say nothing (as in -02 draft) >> (2) say standards action is required for a Yes->No transition >> (3) say IETF review (i.e. an IETF last call) is required for a >> Yes->No transition >> (4) say IESG action is required for a Yes->No transition >> (5) something else >> >> And as a reminder the Recommended column is not about crypto >> quality but is about things for which we have consensus that >> they ought be widely implemented and available at the current >> point in time. Those are related things but Recommended == No >> does not imply crap-crypto even if crap-crypto will hopefully >> imply Recommended == No. >> >> If nobody says anything I'll chat with Kathleen, Sean and Joe >> and we'll pick a thing and that'll doubtless be quibbled about >> during directorate reviews and IESG processing as these things >> always are;-) >> >> But since I'd hope implementers will care about keeping up to >> date with the set of Recommended == Yes things, I do hope that >> folks are willing to express a preference here. >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> [1] >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/shepherdwriteup/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
