Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

IESG approval seems also fine to me. Hopefully ciphers may not be used at
the time they are deprecated.

Yours,
Daniel

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Funny I never thought about going down, but I guess we should ;) I think
> the premise we want here is hard to get a Yes (whether new or upgrade) and
> somewhat easier than that to go down but it can’t be done in the dark so 4
> would work. This kind of works out because people are motivated to get
> ciphers specified, but very much less so to de-specify them.
>
> spt
> > On Nov 21, 2017, at 18:54, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21/11/17 23:39, Martin Thomson wrote:
> >> IESG action seems appropriate for both.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure the WG discussed the No->Yes (or new Yes)
> > before and wanted standards action for that. I'd guess
> > that changing that might take some discussion. (FWIW, I'd
> > not support that change myself but maybe others would.)
> >
> > If the No->Yes stuff doesn't change I'll take you as
> > arguing for a (4) below but correct me if that's wrong.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> >> If we could include guidance
> >> around this (values with Yes should only include those for which the
> >> community currently has consensus are worth having available at the
> >> current time), tat would be awesom>
> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Farrell
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hiya,
> >>>
> >>> I just posted a draft shepherd write-up for this [1]. (The
> >>> write-up text was mostly written by Sean as it happens - for
> >>> which he has my thanks as it's boring as hell to do that:-)
> >>>
> >>> There are nits but only one substantive question that I don't
> >>> recall the WG discussing before (but maybe I'm forgetting).
> >>>
> >>> What is needed to change from Recommended == Yes down to
> >>> Recommended == No? Does that need a standards action (e.g.
> >>> with an RFC) or just IETF review or even maybe just IESG
> >>> action?
> >>>
> >>> In the current draft write-up I've put in the first as a
> >>> placeholder, as that's symmetric with the No->Yes change but
> >>> I think IESG action is probably ok if the WG wanted that as
> >>> the IESG probably won't go crazy and will likely do as the
> >>> WG want in such cases. If the WG do want to write a specific
> >>> foo-no-longer-recommended RFC it can do that in all cases,
> >>> and of course Yes->No transitions could be documented in an
> >>> RFC that documents a "replacement" Yes entry.
> >>>
> >>> So, unless this was already discussed....answers on a postcard
> >>> please - which'd we like:
> >>>
> >>> (1) say nothing (as in -02 draft)
> >>> (2) say standards action is required for a Yes->No transition
> >>> (3) say IETF review (i.e. an IETF last call) is required for a
> >>>    Yes->No transition
> >>> (4) say IESG action is required for a Yes->No transition
> >>> (5) something else
> >>>
> >>> And as a reminder the Recommended column is not about crypto
> >>> quality but is about things for which we have consensus that
> >>> they ought be widely implemented and available at the current
> >>> point in time. Those are related things but Recommended == No
> >>> does not imply crap-crypto even if crap-crypto will hopefully
> >>> imply Recommended == No.
> >>>
> >>> If nobody says anything I'll chat with Kathleen, Sean and Joe
> >>> and we'll pick a thing and that'll doubtless be quibbled about
> >>> during directorate reviews and IESG processing as these things
> >>> always are;-)
> >>>
> >>> But since I'd hope implementers will care about keeping up to
> >>> date with the set of Recommended == Yes things, I do hope that
> >>> folks are willing to express a preference here.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> S.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/
> shepherdwriteup/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TLS mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>