Re: [IPsec] ikev1-graveyard

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 08 April 2019 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.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 3827012012C for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qEFeNfXcvgkL for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7F5112010D for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B4A3826E for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:29:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id D5ED93A1D; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D370539F4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 18:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904081702080.17408@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <14997.1554660673@localhost> <20190408205429.GU70202@kduck.mit.edu> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904081702080.17408@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 18:30:32 -0400
Message-ID: <31207.1554762632@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/nlO_PtpMCWUAl9JN4bmxmTr1jiA>
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 22:30:40 -0000

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> 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.

I don't think that the IETF has any other levers.
Marking it as historic does mess up procurement mechanisms, if they actually
pay attention to that.

I know that the Google Android team are aware of the lack, but it seems
that it is not a priority.  This is sad, but the IETF works with carrots, not
sticks.

But, to be clear: I'd like the WG to adopt your document, and I'd like it to
be the basis for *something*.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [