Re: A proposal from Adrian on the des deprecation registry

I would rather not replace deprecated enctypes' names with "deprecated".

I continue to disagree that adding a column to indicate status should
require any additional process.  Adding a column to reflect reality
that has come about through IESG Protocol Action should require no
special process.  RFC3961 does not specify a number of columns, only
tables from which the initial registry contents should be seeded.
Note that IANA could not add arbitrary fields, such as, say, a public
comment field, without approval -- I'm arguing that no process is
required to add a field to reflect an IESG action that is best
represented by the addition of such a field.

However, if a special process were to be insisted on by IANA or the WG
chairs then I propose that WG chair and AD approval during the IANA
phase of RFC editing for this I-D is the right process.  After all,
it's a bug that this I-D says that "there are no IANA Considerations
for this document", and such a bug is to be fixed no later than the
IANA phase of RFC editing.

I move to apply the KISS principle here.

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