IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] sequence of drafts, draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 12 June 2017 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0439E12AF6E for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 02:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D037kkRM7XGw for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 02:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93FFB1294E0 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 02:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 57613 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2017 09:14:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 12 Jun 2017 09:14:41 -0000
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:08:02 -0000
Message-ID: <20170611230802.17551.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Cc: superuser@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwawfbehfHuz_BoL+pwcA4767MecxPem6EySHZ++M_vtfA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/KVmfDK5dkEnKPov660DZblCAHlc>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] sequence of drafts, draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:14:45 -0000

In article <CAL0qLwawfbehfHuz_BoL+pwcA4767MecxPem6EySHZ++M_vtfA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>That aside, simply not describing rsa-sha1 going forward, and including an
>IANA action to mark it "deprecated" in the registry, seems right to me.  If
>we want to add a paragraph in an appendix paying homage to it and including
>advice about why its use is no longer a good idea, that's fine too.

That's what I'd suggest.  The spec should say what to do if you want to
interoperate.  It needn't call out things not to do in the spec -- there's an
unlimited number of them.  If you want to put an appendix explaining why
the current things to do have changed, that's OK but not urgent.

R's,
John

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status