Re: graveyard: deprecate->historic
Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipsec |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > "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. Changed, see https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard-04.txt Paul >> 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. Is it a mixed signal? I've left the sentence in for now, but I'm fine if we decide to remove it. I can always do that after adoption when I need to re-submit the draft under the new name anyway. Paul