Re: graveyard: deprecate->historic

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:01:39AM -0800, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/23/19 10:46 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Since we're in pedantic process mode...
> [snip]
> > 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.
> 
>    See that's the thing. There is nothing compelling to force the change 
> away
> from "no longer relevant" so people still use it. If there was something
> compelling to make people want to change we wouldn't be forced to do this,
> sigh, die die die nonsense. Perhaps, "we're the IETF and we are really
> serious now". That should dispel all doubt in whoever happens to read this
> RFC. That way we won't need a die die die die or a die die die die die die.

I'm only aboue 95% sure I'm parsing you properly -- you're saying that if
there was a clear reason to move from IKEv1 to IKEv2 the market would have
done it already and we wouldn't be bothering with a doc like this?  That
is, that what we're really doing is akin to "we're the IETF and we
pinky-swear that we're not going to touch this anymore" as opposed to "here
is a list of the ways that using IKEv1 is going to bite you"?

Thanks,

Ben