I agree new code points should gave new RFCs. I am ok with OBSOLETE or DEPRECATED
Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2023, at 17:18, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Warren Kumari wrote: > So, the IANA has a question: > IANA Question --> What about the registrations that currently reference > RFC5933? > Should the registrations currently referencing RFC5933 be marked "OBSOLETE," > "DEPRECATED," changed in > some other way, or left alone? > If IANA is asked to make changes to these registrations, IANA will add a link > to the status change > document to the registrations." > Seeing as GOST R34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94. GOST 34.10-2001 and GOST > 34.11-94 were deprecated by > the Orders of the Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology of > Russia (Rosstandart) in > August 2012, and RFC5933 is being made historic (replaced by > draft-makarenko-gost2012-dnssec which > describes how to use the GOST 2012 algs), I think that "OBSOLETE, see <new > RFC number>" is best, but I > wanted the WG's input… I don't think a pointer to the new RFC should be used, because we are not re-assigning the code points. Let new code points point to the new RFC. So just "DEPRECATED" I think ? Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
