Re: A proposal from Adrian on the des deprecation registry

I think what you're saying is that no special action or process should be needed to allow the IANA to publish what the current state of affairs is based on the currently issued publications.

+1 on that.

On Apr 26, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Nico Williams wrote:

> 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

------------------------------------------------------
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