> 9 янв. 2022 г., в 20:16, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> написал(а): > > Hi, > >> In any case this has no relation to the questions I asked before. >> I repeat it in other words: >> >> - Why it was suddenly requested to put «Historic» label on one given >> algorithm, without any attempt to make «historic» other algorithms, >> which deserves it much more for decades. > > I don't believe there is a request to mark an algorithm as historic, just to mark an RFC that described how to use the algorithm as historic because another body that owns the algorithm has replaced it. > > Why that should come now is because "it was noticed" while producing draft-deremin-rfc4491-bis that the old algorithms were no longer approved by their issuing body. > > Why other RFCs that use or describe the use of other algorithms are not marked as historic might be because no one has asked for them to be marked as historic. It turns out that this is not hard to do, but someone has to ask. > >> - why the procedure exists which makes possible to start the process >> of labelling «Historic» something by request of some anonymous >> «participant» with one paragraph «rationale». > > I think you may have misunderstood the process and the history here. > > The draft authors observed that some algorithms were no longer approved for use by their originating body. > The AD said, in that case we should mark 4491 as historic. > The draft authors (along with the ISE) drafted some text for the AD to use if he wanted to. > The AD issued a call to make 4491 historic. That is new information. IESG announcement referred to some «participant» not referring to AD. If it was an AD, I think that elaborated statement could be issued by AD with explanation why this very update of algorithm strictly demands marking its predecessor as «historic», while no other cases (SSL vs TLS, MD5& SHA-1 vs new hashes) followed that way. > > It is really a significant misstatement to suggest that a request was made by any participant, let alone an anonymous one. > > However, yes, the procedure exists by which anyone can make an observation or request to the AD for an RFC to be moved to Historic. However, it is then up to the AD to craft a "status change document" and issue a last call. The community is then free to object to the change citing any reasonable reason (including that insufficient rationale was provided). IESG statement quoted by me contained _three_ options. I fully agree with processes described in options #2 & #3 and with your description (which, in fact coincides with #2 options), the only question from me was about option #1, which seems arbitrary and unappropriate. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
