[Curdle] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is mainly a processing question, so probably more for the IESG to discuss
than the authors:

I understand the intention of obsoleting RFC4757 to declare that the algorithms
described should not be used anymore, however, rfc4757 is an informational
implementation description which is probably still deployed. Obsoleting an
informational implementation description seems a bit weird. Just would like to
double-check with the rest of the IESG if that action appropriate...?

Also obsoleting and moving to historic is not the same thing. The document says:
"This document recommends the reclassification of [RFC4757] as Historic."
One of the two actions (obsoleting or moving to historic) is enough. While I
think moving to historic might actually be more appropriate than obsoleting an
implementation description, it should only be moved to historic if this is not
used and deployed anymore. Also moving to historic also requires a status
change action.