Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] des-die-die-die and adding IANA registry status columns

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:33:03 -0400

IANA has asked whether we want to add status columns to the Kerberos
enctype and checksumtype registries, given that we are deprecating
some of them, so that we can use those columns to mark the algorithms
as "deprecated".  IANA also notes that we have existing preauth
registry entries with comments such as "obsoleted" and "deprecated"
(though these don't have their own column either).

Any strong opinions about whether to add such status columns?

Relatedly, there is a "checksum size" column in the checksum registry
that has some incorrect values (e.g. for the hmac-sha1-96 checksums).
Does it make more sense to correct these values, or to drop the column
from the registry completely?
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:31:38 -0700

> from the registry completely?

Assuming we can keep the values correct, it seems like a nice piece of reference information to provide.  Actually that applies to the status info as well.

------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email-masked], or [email-masked]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:43:14 -0400

<hat role="individual">

I'm generally against adding work at the end of a document.
I don't think the deprecated entries for preauth seem like a good
argument for deprecated entries for  enctypes and checksum types.

One concern I have is that if we're going to add status columns we
should  go update it for everything which is kind of beyond the scope of
this document.
I don't like expanding the scope of a document in IETF last call.

However my opinion here is relatively weak.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:48:23 -0700

Does an informational column in IANA *require* the whole IETF review process?  It seems like a nice place to keep the info available.  

If maintaining it requires something more than an email from an authoritative individual (a "designated expert" perhaps?) then it won't be maintained properly.  If it's not going to be maintained properly, then it should be dropped.

I don't want to see this document held up for a "nice to have".

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:58:51 -0400

>>>>> "Henry" == Henry B Hotz <[email-masked]> writes:

    Henry> Does an informational column in IANA *require* the whole IETF
    Henry> review process?  It seems like a nice place to keep the info
    Henry> available.  If maintaining it requires something more than an
    Henry> email from an authoritative individual (a "designated expert"
    Henry> perhaps?) then it won't be maintained properly.  If it's not
    Henry> going to be maintained properly, then it should be dropped.

Setting it up and deciding who gets to muck with it and so on probably
does require the full process.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:47:30 -0400

> (though these don't have their own column either).

AFAIK, this is the first time we are explicitly marking an enctype as
deprecated.  So, I see no problem with adding a new column to the
registry to hold such annotations, provided we don't have to go back and
invent a non-NULL status for each existing enctype and cksumtype.

> from the registry completely?

I don't see anything special about checksum size that differentiates it
from the other profile paramaters and warrants including it in the
registry.  IMHO we should just drop that column.  However, I don't think
that has anything to do directly with the present document.

-- Jeff

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:29:18 +0100

Folks,

What's the conclusion here? Does die-die-die need a change for
this or not?

Ta,
S.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:33:22 -0400

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> writes:

    Stephen> Folks,

    Stephen> What's the conclusion here? Does die-die-die need a change
    Stephen> for this or not?

Here's what I wrote to Stephen in another message that was not copied to
the WG:

OK, here's where we stand on the IANA thing.

The registry in question doesn't currently record status.  The WG did
not sign up to adding status columns when we wrote des-die-die-die
although perhaps we should have.  A couple of people spoke out in favor
of adding status and deprecating things in the registry if it was easy.
Tom pointed out that if we were going to do that we probably ought to
consider the status of everything else already in that registry and set
it accurately.

So, current status seems to be that no one really objects to updating
the registry if it's easy, no one really strongly supports it. There's
some doubt about whether it's easy or whether it would end up raising
the status of other ciphersuites or macs.

I'm not seeing a strong consensus for change, but no significant
opposition.
So, do you want to make a call on what you'd like us to do here?
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:46:17 +0100

On 04/09/2012 04:33 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell<[email-masked]>  writes:
>
>      Stephen>  Folks,
>

And my response is: do whatever the WG want.

If it helps for me to make the call, then leave the document as-is and
proceed.

My reason is nobody seems to care enough to warrant a change.

I don't mind if you take that route or some other.

No point hanging about though.

S.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:48:40 -0400

I agree that no one seems to care enough to make a change, so I'd
proceed as-is.
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:26:54 +0100

> I agree that no one seems to care enough to make a change, so I'd

Done. On April 26th telechat.

S

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:49:22 -0500

I would like to see a status column in the registry.  I don't think
any special process should be required just to add that column --
process should be required to specify anything other than Protocol
Action for updating the status of any enctype.

Thus I think IANA should just add the column, with "deprecated" only
for the enctypes being deprecated by this I-D.

Nico
--