Rich, Just to close the loop on this, there are three values: Y, N, and blank. I tend to think we should mark is as “N”:
If an item is not marked as "Recommended" (i.e., "N"), it does not necessarily mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. That specific use case is two servers talking an old version to each other in whatever setting they are being used in. Also, should we be adding “_legacy” to the names of the code points as was done for rsa_pkcs1_sha256_legacy by: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-davidben-tls13-pkcs1-00.txt? spt > On Jun 25, 2020, at 08:35, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > • I submitted a PR [1] for draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate to move > the recommended IANA registry entries for rsa_pkcs1_sha1 and ecdsa_sha1 in > the Signature Scheme registry from Y to N. This change can be incorporated > with any updates from the AD review. > > Yes yes yes. > > Or no no no? > > I think it is remove the “Y” and leave blank, right? > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
