On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 12:59 AM Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote: > Despite the reference to DNSSEC in the title, I think the life cycle > concepts apply to the use of algorithms in all settings.
I'm wondering if you might want to make your draft more generic, and explicitly expand it to all protocols/technologies. (funny enough, despite its title, draft-buraglio-deprecate7050 doesn't really obsolete RFC7050, so 'deprecation' is not the right term). > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 1:52 PM Jen Linkova <furr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 11:26 PM Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote: >>> >>> Documenting and Managing DNSSEC Algorithm Lifecycles >>> draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle-01 >> >> >>> >>> I noted during the DNSOP session yesterday that two algorithms were >>> selected for deprecation. I believe the message below pertains to one of >>> them. As noted in the life cycle document, the process of downgrading the >>> use of an algorithm should go through three(!) phases. As described in the >>> I-D, a sequence of three actions is described: Phaseout, Deprecation, >>> Obsolescence. (Feel free to propose alternative words that are >>> grammatically parallel.). The text is quoted below. >>> >>> Questions for the DNSOP WG re moving an algorithm to "deprecate" status: >>> >>> Does moving an algorithm to "deprecate" state exactly match any of the >>> actions listed in the lifecycle draft? If so, which one? If not, why not? >> >> >> draft-buraglio-deprecate7050 has nothing to do with DNSSEC (well, one of the >> problem of RFC7050 is that it's don't work with DNSSEC), so I'm not sure the >> DNSSEC algorithms lifecycle terminology applies here. >> >> I agree that we might think about wording (e.g. call it "Discouraging" >> instead of "Deprecation"). >> >> I believe that the Redhat incident scenario is not really applicable here, >> as the draft only recommends that operators provide other methods >> (non-DNS-based), and hosts using those methods when available. >> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> >>> Date: Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 7:00 PM >>> Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-buraglio-deprecate7050 in >>> state "Candidate for WG Adoption" >>> To: <dnsop-cha...@ietf.org>, <dnsop@ietf.org>, >>> <draft-buraglio-deprecate7...@ietf.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-buraglio-deprecate7050 in state >>> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) >>> >>> The document is available at >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-buraglio-deprecate7050/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent by a Verified >>> sender >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, Jen Linkova > > > > -- > Sent by a Verified > sender -- Cheers, Jen Linkova _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
