Ben, Thanks for pointing out I missed a couple. Inline …
spt > On Aug 13, 2020, at 13:54, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Hi Kathleen, > > Also inline. > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 04:29:56PM -0400, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> >> Thanks for your review. Some initial responses are inline. >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:22 PM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> I found three documents (3656, 4540, 7562) in the list of update targets >>> that are on the ISE (not IETF) stream. I had talked to Adrian during my >>> preliminary review, and in principle it is permissible to make those >>> updates as part of this document, but we will need specific ISE approval >>> to do so. I am supposed to sync up with him during IETF LC, but the >>> document needs to be updated to clarify that the updates of ISE >>> documents are/will be done with permission of the ISE. (Please also try >>> to double-check that the list is complete; I didn't find an >>> authoritative list of "all documents on the ISE stream" to grep against, >>> and I didn't try to have something parse rfc-index.xml to output such a >>> list. >>> >> >> OK, so you'd like a list added and that's not in your pull request, is that >> right? We'll figure it out. Thanks in advance with the coordination with >> Adrian. > > That's correct, this is not in my pull request (not least because that list > of three documents is incomplete -- I sent a more-likely-complete list of 6 > documents in an off-list follow-up. > https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?stream_name=Independent&page=All > will get a (presumably authoritative) list of ISE-stream documents, FWIW. After going through the list I found six. Here’s some text that addresses the fact that will have permission from the ISE: https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/pull/6 >>> Section 1.1 >>> >>> I went through all 83 of the references in the big list, that are >>> supposed to be ones that "normatively reference TLS 1.0/1.1 or DTLS 1.0, >>> as well as the shorter list of already-obsoleted documents. >>> >>> I won't bore you with my full notes, but there are some particular >>> things that stood out from the review: >>> >>> - We have a separate list of updates for documents that are already >>> obsolete (but don't say much about why we're going go the extra >>> bother). However, three of the documents in our main list of updates >>> (4743, 4744, and 6460) are already Historic, and presumably should be >>> treated more like the already-obsolete ones. >>> >> >> Obsolete does not mean the same thing as deprecate though. TLSv1.2 has >> been obsoleted by TLSv1.3, but not deprecated. The deprecation goes the >> extra step to say not to use it and it triggers many to begin phase out >> plans. Am I misunderstanding the question? > > I think you're misunderstanding the question, yes, sorry. > > I think we want the documents that are Historic to be listed separately > from the other ("regular") updates, in a manner akin to what is already > done for the documents that are currently obsolete. Or, perhaps, to say > that there is no point in deprecating something that is already historic, > and not bother updating those three documents, but it seems okay to keep > the current status with a comprehensive list of updates. How about this: https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/pull/7 spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
