Thanks, Sean, the linked pull requests seem to do the trick. Skimming through https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/K9_uA6m0dD_oQCw-5kAbha-Kq5M/ once more, I think I still plan to put out a status-change document to move RFC 5469 (IDEA and DES ciphers) to Historic in parallel with the IETF LC for this document. It is probably not critical that we mention such a change in the document text, though we could if we want to.
I think we still need to check for the latest version of the SP800-52r2 reference, too. Thanks again, Ben On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 01:02:07PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > Ben, > > Thanks for pointing out I missed a couple. Inline … > > spt > > > On Aug 13, 2020, at 13:54, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
