On 09-Jan-22 07:11, Salz, Rich wrote:
Will someone pick up 4491 by mistake? I hugely doubt it
I think that only part of this thread is relevant to the ISE and the
Independent Submissions Stream. That part is the progression of
draft-deremin-rfc4491-bis, and I am unchanged in my opinion that that
document is ready to be published as an Informational RFC in the
Independent Stream
As someone who has been involved with implementations of national crypto standards for years (I helped the GOST implementors get re-sync'd with OpenSSL, and played a part in getting SM2/3/4 documented in the IETF and implemented in OpenSSL), I just want to say that it is my view that the views of Adrian quoted above are exactly right.
Yes, but neither labelling 4491 "Historic" (rather than both "Historic" and "Obsoleted By", nor updating RFC 3279, solves the problem of how an implementor of RFC 3279 is to find the current list of algorithms that are valid/deprecated/forbidden.
In some ways that is an orthogonal problem, but relying on all implementors to be attentive readers of the relevant IETF mailing lists is not a solution.
Within our current practices, RFC3279bis establishing an IANA registry
of algorithms might be one solution.
Brian
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
