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 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 (
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 ci
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
IESG action seems appropriate for both. 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 awesome.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrot
