On 2025-01-05, at 23:11, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > okay, so do we need new documents,
No. (But see below.) > or can some just be blessed to STD via > IESG action? Yes. (We did this with RFC20 == STD80, which was not quite a candidate for respinning.) > Probably we should make a list of documents. > > Generally, we'd need new documents if there are significant features which > have NEVER been useful/implemented, and we should drop them first. Correct. > (I think that all of AH might fall into that, sadly) Also, when elevating a document to STD, it should not have errata. (See RFC20 for why I wrote “should not”, not “MUST NOT”.) RFC 4301 has 2 verified, 7 HFDU. Unfortunately, respinning a document that is twenty years old will require significant review, so the WG should be sure it has the energy to take this on. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
