[IPsec] ikev1-graveyard

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

I have read draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard-00.

I think that the actual words and organization of the document could use a
bit of polish, but fundamentally it does the right thing, and sends the right message.

I would like to ask the WG to adopt this document, we can sort out the
wording afterwards, and spend (priority) WG time on this document.

I would very much like to point to a clear statement when I see IKEv1 being
used in the field for no good reason (except that nobody thought about IKEv2).
If it has to be in the form of an RFC, so be it: I'd like to be able to say
to a manager, "You are not RFCZZYY compliant", and I'd like this to get
into a variety of security audit lists.

The document likely has likely little technical impact, and I think we should
acknowledge that this is a policy statement.
That's okay with me, if it it is okay with the IESG.
If there is another way to get the same impact, I'm open to hearing it.

The datatracker page for RFC2409 already says:
   Type		RFC - Proposed Standard (November 1998; No errata)
   Obsoleted by RFC 4306
   Updated by RFC 4109

But, I think that the goal is to mark these documents as Historic as well.
I didn't see that action in the document specifically (maybe I missed it).
Many updates to the IANA registries, which we could do in other ways, I think.

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.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-