IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Moving Authentication Header (AH) to Historic

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 02 January 2012 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 0593A11E809A for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:04:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PqVrkWF+9Mb0 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838DA11E8098 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3291E2AC073 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:04:22 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc: content-type; q=dns; s=cryptonector.com; b=TOTFktkxAlDCFhOg98RJF slhtKb3mMtLi2BIv7a3EikuBYfGiub4utpqM3h4GrkcRKsPiwiVu66nWajDaprpQ NYU8SxkJNL3EGJjF2vKBcMnRuicx28iK0qKDZi/ZDzSr5L4bFwCQqSm1w5TcJ6p3 lYA9OMyK6y838WEdlhg78s=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=QOw3yqV3FDbh/uECwTS4 I+gj0NM=; b=gW0J/Rw3s5DDpV33ZjEOZQ80WE6a29JMkRnx7rNVcf7Kx11wmSzM 1/DxFj9Ay+hdqgISkRTjxeZ4jsUDpY3lwYcl2rIIJP7uRgeN3OI0OCCnTdjAuZc/ 5i6YxCZgn8CVofigvdlZcUFD/m1OoyT6LfNE7AghyOMwAUrwzkZecgo=
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 181C42AC06E for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dajz8 with SMTP id z8so14971303daj.31 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:04:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.73.234 with SMTP id o10mr124296452pbv.90.1325520261618; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.10.234 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 08:04:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAObD46sAET9F29ShEqGZvte-ZMPwtvSjVaM=GMoHVCi+7-GkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350D027BB264@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A5D81F2F@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <CAObD46sAET9F29ShEqGZvte-ZMPwtvSjVaM=GMoHVCi+7-GkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:04:21 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOift5M_=fsLzH52ackW3-jZLKMRVU8K=md25on3YOngNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Venkatesh Sriram <vnktshsriram@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Moving Authentication Header (AH) to Historic
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:04:23 -0000

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Venkatesh Sriram
<vnktshsriram@gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly agree with David, Manav and Nico that we must not worry
> about the process stuff here. Once we have an understanding of how
> this needs to be done, taking care of the process stuff should be
> easy.

Hmmm, that wasn't my point.  I believe it's fair to say that
"Historic" here means "not to be used in new Standards-Track RFCs",
and nothing more.  Questions about the meaning of "Historic" and
"deprecated" do need settling, because they are affecting how much
effort we put into this as well as [potentially] the actual outcome.
So, I am worried about process: the standardization process being
affected by confusion about an important aspect of it.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email