Paul: I just posted draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic-04, which add two sentences to state that the standards-track status of RFC 6605 and RFC 8253 are unchanged. Russ > On Feb 20, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This document seems fine in general. I have concern about a possible misperception that one document that is made historic by it (RFC 6460) could affect the standards status of two documents that refer to it, namely RFC 6650 and RFC 8253. To prevent the misperception, I propose the following additions in Section 4.5: > > RFC 6605, "Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for > DNSSEC" [RFC6605], states that material was copied liberally from RFC > 6460. > becomes > RFC 6605, "Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for > DNSSEC" [RFC6605], states that material was copied liberally from RFC > 6460. The standards status of RFC 6605 is not affected by RFC 6460 > being moved to Historic status. > > RFC 8253, "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the > Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)" [RFC8253], > points RFC 6460 for the TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and > TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 cipher suites. Both of these > ciphersuites are defined in [RFC5289], which would have been a better > reference. > becomes > RFC 8253, "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the > Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)" [RFC8253], > points RFC 6460 for the TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and > TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 cipher suites. Both of these > ciphersuites are defined in [RFC5289], which would have been a better > reference. Regardless, the standards status of RFC 8253 is not > affected by RFC 6460 being moved to Historic status. > > --Paul Hoffman
