Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] Status of draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:50:17 -0500

Hi.
I've talked to our ADs.
They say that des-die-die-die can be either standards-track or BCP.

I'd prefer that it be a BCP. I think BCP documents are more appropriate
for statements of what people should do than standards track.  A BCP
definitely can update a standards track document when it's describing
what we no longer thing is good practice.

How would people feel if I asked the editors to reclassify this document
as a BCP?

If we do choose to deprecate RC4-EXP either in a standards-track or BCP
document, we are propbably best invoking the normative down-reference
procedure.  That adds no time to the process unless the chairs or ADs
forget to handle things correctly.  I have fairly high confidence that
either no one will object to a normative down-referece or they will
argue that it's not a normative dependency to point to a document and
say "don't do that," so informative is sufficient.  Using a normative
reference and calling it out in the last call is conservative: probably
no one cares. If they do changing to informative is easy. The other
direction would require a second last call.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:10:35 -0500

> How would people feel if I asked the editors to reclassify this document

I'm fine with reclassifying it as a BCP.  This also has the advantage
of putting it in a specialized index that has fewer entries than the
RFC index...
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:25:34 -0600

> of putting it in a specialized index that has fewer entries than the

And the downside that RFC4120 will not be shown as updated in the
rfcsearch utility.

But, sure, whatever,

Nico
--

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:51:28 -0500

> And the downside that RFC4120 will not be shown as updated in the

Why not?  Wouldn't the "Updates: 4120" header take care of that?
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:56:57 -0800

That sounds like a significant downside to me.  The update is the whole point.

> And the downside that RFC4120 will not be shown as updated in the

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

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:08:33 -0500

> That sounds like a significant downside to me.  The update is the whole point.

I believe Nico is mistaken, given what I see looking through both
bcp-index.txt and rfc-index.txt.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:17:42 -0600

> bcp-index.txt and rfc-index.txt.

That's probably right.  Please excuse my mistake.

Nico