Moreover, consider https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/ "However, the only instructions in 2026 for its use are in section 6, and those are to move full "Internet Standard" status documents to "Historic" status, thereby "retiring" the technology in the standard. This differs from the "Obsoletes:" header that is put on documents as per RFC 2223. The "Obsoletes:" header indicates a replacement version of the same technology, rather than a retirement of the technology itself. Using "Obsoletes:" is simply a matter of indicating this in the header of the RFC. Moving a document to "Historic" status requires a specific IETF-wide Last Call and a formal action of the IESG.» Header «Updated» or «Obsoleted» is definitely more appropriate in this case. Proposition for assigning of «Historic» header must be elaborated to fit the scope IESG statement of «retiring _the_technology_ itself». Current proposition contains nothing except reference to the deprecation of usage of given algorithms in the «systems presented for certification» in the given certification system. There are a number of algorithms in IETF documents database with the same current status of being deprecated for usage in certified systems, but none of them is being attempted to assign a «Historic» header in IETF (cf. MD5, SHA-1, etc.). I think that more consistent approach to usage of this header should be developed, and «shortcut» procedure #1 from the quoted statement of assigning it should be considered the first candidate for applying it <grin>. ;) dol@
|
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
