[DNSOP]Re: Further comment re algorithm life cycles

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Sun, 19 May 2024 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B26C14F693 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2024 10:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0zMwwWYXk9d for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2024 10:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5D70C14F5E5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2024 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1E682421229; Sun, 19 May 2024 17:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvLetqCakV9s0ma9owFo-hFbJ57dz7B4v_xK+bSdFJVrfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 18:46:11 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2710591F-616C-4DCA-9F60-80BC8C6C05D5@rfc1035.com>
References: <CAHw9_iKavFk6QBU=rYXU5R7EigJZHNqyYengUpPF3KiCiCUEJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABf5zvJLb9vA3fo8JT6jTHROzMda7vqdUcQh7cDzhDSEepQFzA@mail.gmail.com> <CABf5zvLetqCakV9s0ma9owFo-hFbJ57dz7B4v_xK+bSdFJVrfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
X-MailFrom: jim@rfc1035.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP]Re: Further comment re algorithm life cycles
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uEejHhuL7lGsMOiV0uqcG494mNE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

> On 19 May 2024, at 18:21, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
> No: I don't think the scheme is quite right.
> In my view, an algorithm moves through seven phases during its lifecycle.
> 1. Experimental – defined and included in the IANA registry 
> 2. Adopted – begin inclusion in validation suite
> 3. Available – ok to use for signing
> 4. Mainstream – recommended for signing
> 5. Phaseout  – transition to newer signing algorithm
> 6. Deprecated  – signing should have stopped
> 7. Obsolete  – ok to remove from validation suite

Remarkably similar to the Kubler-Ross model for dealing with grief. :-)