On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
"this document" (i.e., the RFC-to-be) does not actually effecuate the move
to Historic status; the separate "status-change" document does so. Looking
at a recent example in RFC 8429, we see this phrased akin to "Accordingly,
IKEv1 has been moved to Historic status" with no claim of doing so because
of the current document.
Changed, see
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pwouters-ikev1-ipsec-graveyard-04.txt
Paul
requests IANA to close all IKEv1 registries.
2: Change section title
s/Deprecating IKEv1/RFC 2409 to Historic
This is probably okay to keep (I see Paul took the changes already), but
the first sentence is still "IKEv1 is deprecated", which is sending mixed
signals.
Is it a mixed signal? I've left the sentence in for now, but I'm fine if
we decide to remove it. I can always do that after adoption when I need
to re-submit the draft under the new name anyway.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
