Re: des-die-die-die and adding IANA registry status columns

Folks,

What's the conclusion here? Does die-die-die need a change for
this or not?

Ta,
S.

On 04/05/2012 08:47 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:33 -0400, Tom Yu wrote:
>> IANA has asked whether we want to add status columns to the Kerberos
>> enctype and checksumtype registries, given that we are deprecating
>> some of them, so that we can use those columns to mark the algorithms
>> as "deprecated".  IANA also notes that we have existing preauth
>> registry entries with comments such as "obsoleted" and "deprecated"
>> (though these don't have their own column either).
>
> AFAIK, this is the first time we are explicitly marking an enctype as
> deprecated.  So, I see no problem with adding a new column to the
> registry to hold such annotations, provided we don't have to go back and
> invent a non-NULL status for each existing enctype and cksumtype.
>
>> Relatedly, there is a "checksum size" column in the checksum registry
>> that has some incorrect values (e.g. for the hmac-sha1-96 checksums).
>> Does it make more sense to correct these values, or to drop the column
>> from the registry completely?
>
> I don't see anything special about checksum size that differentiates it
> from the other profile paramaters and warrants including it in the
> registry.  IMHO we should just drop that column.  However, I don't think
> that has anything to do directly with the present document.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-krb-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg
>
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg