Simon Josefsson <simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org> writes:
1) MD2 is not on the standards track, it is Informational. I agree with
wishes to move "poor" documents from the Standards Track to Historic,
but I'm not sure I see such a big difference between having a "poor"
document as Informational or Historic. Especially for a crypto
algorithm, which the IETF typically does not put on the standards
track at all. Is there some precedent for moving Informational to
Historic?
It helps to have something like this formally retired so you have a document
to point to when someone wants to use (or continue to use) MD2. Trying to
explain to them the difference between "Informational" and "Standards Track"
when their requirement is "must be specified in an RFC" isn't generally
useful.
(We really need an RFC equivalent of the UK's Great Repeal Bill at some
point...).
Peter.
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime