IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] ikev1-graveyard

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 08 April 2019 21:03 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 8AC0D12034F for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 WHIYJ9Isar-g for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 A5747120013 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 14:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44dNDg6SJkzKHs; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:03:15 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1554757395; bh=HfRihEmcn/rtkAPYSqzmmt4f52nEnsgcdgbabu21/24=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qaJFTi85RhlXBkY7jxVg6oF2RaqMeaiiCTBhZ0ReGZg6OaOVfFkc/naqEN192gnv2 FC+DhtglP3oslhSEB2iKrLyz1jo8ffy3tPAIAS17NYhHVMGSw7dU+sgNOlddl3CFEd gDkmVwEBAhX4V5R9wA2z0BeRKB/P9UcvhE4Ap6NQ=
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 K10bMrU0j0QY; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:03:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:03:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6AA7F39A620; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 6AA7F39A620
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6170740D358A; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 17:03:13 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20190408205429.GU70202@kduck.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904081702080.17408@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <14997.1554660673@localhost> <20190408205429.GU70202@kduck.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/_L5cOsbg2VhQXusvItXkOgWQ_gM>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] ikev1-graveyard
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 21:03:21 -0000

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

>> As I understand it, marking something as Historic is something the IESG can
>> do without publishing a document.  The changes to the IANA registries I'm
>> less clear about, but I believe it could also be done without a document.
>
> To move to historic, there should be some form of document (per
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/) but it
> need not be published as an RFC.  The past few times we've done this
> everyone involved had to think for a while to remember what the right way
> to wrangle the wording in the published RFC should be, but we can worry
> about that later if we need to.

Historic really means "no longer used", which we all hope would be the
case for IKEv1, but sadly is not. Seeing how a billion android devices
only support IKEv1, I think "historic" is really not the correct action
at this point.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email