Re: A proposal from Adrian on the des deprecation registry

On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 15:30 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> I would rather not replace deprecated enctypes' names with "deprecated".

Oh, dear, I missed that.  I agree strongly -- it's the enctype that's
deprecated not the number, and the enctype still has a name.  We have
enough problems with people using made-up names for enctypes without
removing the real names from the registry.


> 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.

I think you are conflating setting the status column to "deprecated",
which should not require additional process beyond making the decision
to deprecate the enctype (which is an _IETF_ action, not something the
IESG does unilaterally) with making the schema change to introduce the
column.  It seems the schema change might require some amount of
process, if for no other reason than that IANA has tried hard over the
last few years to get itself out of the business of making unilateral
decisions about registries and their contents.

-- Jeff

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