Re: A proposal from Adrian on the des deprecation registry

Like Adrian's proposed registry changes.  Don't want to slow down adoption of the draft for it.

On Apr 26, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> IANA's question about whether we should  deprecate code points in the
> registry came up during IESG discussion of
> draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die.
> It looks like our discussion is sufficient and we will be able to move
> forward with no change if we like.
> 
> However, since a specific proposal was made  I'd like to forward it to
> the WG in case people start shouting for joy.
> we could potentially make the change now if the document doesn't end up
> getting approved today and people are very supportive.
> Or we could make this with some-numbers-to-iana.
> 
> 
> From: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>
> Date: April 26, 2012 6:06:35 AM PDT
> To: 'Stephen Farrell' <[email protected]>
> Cc: 'Sam Hartman' <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-04: (with DISCUSS)
> Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> Hi again,
>  
> (Apologies for html email, but the layout of the registry columns works better in a non-proportional font)
>  
> > >> [1] https://lists.anl.gov/pipermail/ietf-krb-wg/2012-April/010096.html
> > >
> > > The thread seems to talk about the addition of a column on the intended
> > > "required to implement" level. I would, as I said in my previous mail, not think
> > > that appropriate for a registry.
> > >
> > > "Deprecated" in a registry is a different thing. It describes the use of the
> > > code point, not the use of the thing the code point indicates.
> >
> > So, I'm now unsure as to what's needed to clear the discuss.
>  
> I think I am going to clear on the basis that Discussion has been had.
>  
> > They thought about modifying the registry but decided not to
> > add a status column that would say deprecated which is what I
> > thought you were asking. I think Sam's mail summarised the (not
> > very energetic;-) discussion nicely. [1]
>  
> Nah, that wasn't what I was suggesting. I was not after such a sweeping change, and I see why you are nervous of it. I was simply suggesting deprecating the code points for the deprecated mechanisms.
>  
> I was thinking that the registry might change as
>  
> OLD
>        etype     encryption type              Reference
>          0       reserved                     [RFC6448]
>          1       des-cbc-crc                  [RFC3961]
>          2       des-cbc-md4                  [RFC3961]
>          3       des-cbc-md5                  [RFC3961]
> NEW
>        etype     encryption type              Reference
>          0       reserved                     [RFC6448]
>          1       Deprecated                   [RFC3961], [This.I-D]
>          2       Deprecated                   [RFC3961], [This.I-D]
>          3       Deprecated                   [RFC3961], [This.I-D]
>  
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>  
> > If there's something else needed can you say what? E.g. if
> > you're saying "you must add that column even though the WG
> > didn't want to" it'd be better to be clear about that.
> >
> > The danger with doing that is as noted in Sam's mail above:
> > it'd maybe open a can of worms about the status values to
> > put in for a bunch of other things. (Yuk - endless process
> > discussions that affect no code, unlike this draft;-)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-krb-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email protected], or [email protected]

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg