Since we're in pedantic process mode...
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 02:31:08PM -0500, Sean Turner wrote:
> warning: process mumbo jumbo follows
>
> Technically, I think that s3 of draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard is
> trying to do is move IKEv1 to historic. IKEv1 is already obsoleted by RFC
> 4036, but that’s not quite the same thing as moving what was a standards
> track document to “historic”. The various way to move an RFC to historic is
> described in this IESG statement {0]. Since there’s already a draft going,
> it seems like #3 is the path.
>
> The question is whether there should be two drafts: one that moves RFC 2409
> to historic and the other deprecates the algorithms. I wouldn’t be hard over
> on splitting, but it’s probably better to use the “historic” terminology in
> s3. I suggest the following changes:
>
> 0: Tweak abstract
>
> OLD:
>
> This document deprecates Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) and
> additionally deprecates a number of algorithms that are obsolete.
>
> NEW:
>
> This document moves Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) to
> Historic status. It also deprecates a number of algorithms that
"this document" (i.e., the RFC-to-be) does not actually effecuate the move
to Historic status; the separate "status-change" document does so. Looking
at a recent example in RFC 8429, we see this phrased akin to "Accordingly,
IKEv1 has been moved to Historic status" with no claim of doing so because
of the current document.
> are obsolete and closes all IKEv1 registries.
>
> 1: Tweak intro
>
> OLD:
>
> This document specifies the deprecation of
> IKEv1, and requests IANA to close all IKEv1 registries.
>
> NEW:
>
> This document moves IKEv1 to to Historic status, and
(similar here)
> requests IANA to close all IKEv1 registries.
>
> 2: Change section title
>
> s/Deprecating IKEv1/RFC 2409 to Historic
This is probably okay to keep (I see Paul took the changes already), but
the first sentence is still "IKEv1 is deprecated", which is sending mixed
signals. Perhaps something like "IKEv1 is no longer relevant for Internet
systems" would work, though I suspect we could even get away without such
an intro sentence and just dive in straight with "Systems running IKEv1
should be upgraded and reconfigured to run IKEv2."
-Ben
> spt
>
> [0]
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/
> [1]
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
