Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Although there is precedent for obsoleting a spec and making it historical at the same time, I agree with Mirja that it doesn't seem to make sense in most cases.
I agree with Mirja that is seems more appropriate to move RFC4757 to historic. I'm guessing the choice for obsolete was because of deprecating the algorithms used in the implementation. Thanks for your work on this draft.
I agree with Mirja's points about Obsoletes vs. Historic, and I didn't think we required a status change document for *all* move-to-Historic status changes, but https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html says that we do. On the brighter side, that may be the best draft filename I've seen as an AD ...
Thanks to Joel for his OpsDir review. I have a few comments / readability suggestions: 1: Section 5.1. Statistical Biases "These attacks seem to rely on repeated encryptions of thousands of copies of the same plaintext; " -- for a document which deprecates rc4-hmac the "seem to rely on" feels very weak. I'd suggest s/seem// or "At least some of these attacks rely on..." or similar. 2: Section 6. 3DES Weakness "Additionally, the 3DES encryption types were never implemented in all Kerberos implementations..." s/never/not/ 3: Section 6.3. Interoperability "The triple-DES encryption types were implemented by MIT Kerberos early in its development (ca. 1999) and present in the 1.2 release, but encryption types 17 and 18 (AES) were implemented by 2003 and present in the 1.3 release." I'm a bit confused by the "but" - should this be "and"? Otherwise it sounds like it it trying to contrast something.
Sorry, for the late response!
This document should formally Update rfc4120: Section 7 includes text which removes encryption/checksum mechanisms from it.