Re: [tcpm] status of TCP-MD5 after TCP-AO publication

Folks,

RFC 2026 defines a HISTORIC RFC as follows:

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.

I think that TCP-MD5 fits that definition.

The HISTORIC nomenclature doesn't mean that there is no longer an
installed base. It just means that something more recent is available.

                            Ron

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 29 jul 2009, at 12:48, Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
>> at the meeting, the question came up which status TCP-MD5 should  
>> have after TCP-AO is published. Specifically, whether it should be  
>> obsoleted by TCP-AO and/or if it should be reclassified as Historic.
> 
> First of all, I'd like to see some operational experience with TCP-AO.  
> Don't throw away your old shoes until you know whether the new ones fit.
> 
> Second, it's not like TCP-MD5 isn't being used. As such, "historic"  
> wouldn't apply. "Deprecated", maybe.
> 
> Third, why is it exactly that we can't simply move from MD5 to IPsec  
> to protect BGP sessions??
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 