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

On 04/09/2012 04:33 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell<[email protected]>  writes:
>
>      Stephen>  Folks,
>
>      Stephen>  What's the conclusion here? Does die-die-die need a change
>      Stephen>  for this or not?
>
> Here's what I wrote to Stephen in another message that was not copied to
> the WG:

And my response is: do whatever the WG want.

If it helps for me to make the call, then leave the document as-is and
proceed.

My reason is nobody seems to care enough to warrant a change.

I don't mind if you take that route or some other.

No point hanging about though.

S.

>
> OK, here's where we stand on the IANA thing.
>
> The registry in question doesn't currently record status.  The WG did
> not sign up to adding status columns when we wrote des-die-die-die
> although perhaps we should have.  A couple of people spoke out in favor
> of adding status and deprecating things in the registry if it was easy.
> Tom pointed out that if we were going to do that we probably ought to
> consider the status of everything else already in that registry and set
> it accurately.
>
> So, current status seems to be that no one really objects to updating
> the registry if it's easy, no one really strongly supports it. There's
> some doubt about whether it's easy or whether it would end up raising
> the status of other ciphersuites or macs.
>
> I'm not seeing a strong consensus for change, but no significant
> opposition.
> So, do you want to make a call on what you'd like us to do here?
> _______________________________________________
> 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