IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] graveyard: deprecate->historic

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 31 December 2019 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A1512008F for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 WO6d4RTVJApr for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5E0712002E for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47mz7t2LpQzF3H; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 03:41:14 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1577760074; bh=9XOze+nYwklEpurFsj/Hc+h2gQsxA/MeMYySrXUt834=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XAJorYBBSADYUuzBau7y/Zn1SbR3HvWRWYZc0/fxgS+z9I3VXT1Mp8AQ4KHK5o5VA bxgu+W1NPmEtLrixnC9eayCv6w8mqZCWsNnv7h2A65CBIdgrAzVl4hA497L8ofczs5 UJZgPQd7OTOGH038Rg6Dfq41Nuh/8TFmJIaP1PB8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYjjo-yJfwQc; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 03:41:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 03:41:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A3DE06001421; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:41:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A012A66AA8; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:41:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:41:11 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
cc: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, IPsec List <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20191223184651.GC35479@kduck.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1912302137290.30120@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <A8FABB55-C89E-4DDE-88CA-9A5839E023B2@sn3rd.com> <20191223184651.GC35479@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/RWXWhsJ6kcz33ZmSZ-mUbTlvs3I>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] graveyard: deprecate->historic
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 02:41:19 -0000

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> "this document" (i.e., the RFC-to-be) does not actually effecuate the move
> to Historic status; the separate "status-change" document does so.  Looking
> at a recent example in RFC 8429, we see this phrased akin to "Accordingly,
> IKEv1 has been moved to Historic status" with no claim of doing so because
> of the current document.

Changed, see https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard-04.txt

Paul

>>  requests IANA to close all IKEv1 registries.
>> 
>> 2: Change section title
>> 
>> s/Deprecating IKEv1/RFC 2409 to Historic
>
> This is probably okay to keep (I see Paul took the changes already), but
> the first sentence is still "IKEv1 is deprecated", which is sending mixed
> signals.

Is it a mixed signal? I've left the sentence in for now, but I'm fine if
we decide to remove it. I can always do that after adoption when I need
to re-submit the draft under the new name anyway.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email