Deprecation of the Internet Key Exchange Version 1 (IKEv1) Protocol and Obsoleted Algorithms
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-09

Thank you for the work on this document.

I would suggest requesting IANA to add a pointer to this specification in their current Notes (they currently have Notes pointing to 8221 and 8247). I would also suggest to expand on the meaning of the "Status" column and its allowed values, including said values meaning - I guess this is related to Warren's DISCUSS. It might seem unnecessary and self-explanatory to the authors, but it can't hurt to be exceedingly clear.

Nits
- “A few notably” should be “A few notable”
- “an addition Security Context selector” should be “an additional...”
- s/standarized/standardized/

The document shepherd writeup says:

--
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

Yes.
--

I'm assuming the shepherd just ran over the question too quickly.  But, if you really meant "Yes" here, what's the plan to fix it?

Section 7 says: "All entries not mentioned here should receive no value in the new Status field."  Why not have a status of "current" or something definite?

After discussions on the telechat, I'm clearing my discuss.

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/rK3E1XT4aINFH14eXi90vEqPa0o).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 1
```
-    method was never standarized in IKEv1.  Those IKEv1 systems that
+    method was never standardized in IKEv1.  Those IKEv1 systems that
+                            +
```

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC4306]` to `RFC4306`, which was obsoleted by `RFC5996` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2407]` to `RFC2407`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4306` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2409]` to `RFC2409`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4306` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2408]` to `RFC2408`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4306` (this may
be on purpose).

### URLs

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which has been taken out of service:

 * https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-06.txt

### Grammar/style

#### Section 6, paragraph 1
```
ocument instructs IANA to add an additional Status column to the IKEv2 Transf
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This phrase might be redundant. Consider either removing or replacing the
adjective "additional".

#### Section 7, paragraph 5
```
ment] Figure 3 Transform Type 4 - Diffie Hellman Group Transform IDs Number
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

Thanks for this.  A pretty easy document, and always good to clear out old cruft.

I do wonder exactly how well understood "deprecated" is in the wider community.

E.g.,

(i) the definition of deprecated in YANG (RFC 7950) is:
   o  "deprecated" indicates an obsolete definition, but it permits
      new/continued implementation in order to foster interoperability
      with older/existing implementations.

(ii) the definition in Java is:
  A program element annotated @Deprecated is one that programmers are discouraged from using,
  typically because it is dangerous, or because a better alternative exists. Compilers warn
  when a deprecated program element is used or overridden in non-deprecated code.

I think that the definition that security uses is presumably much closer to (ii), or not even stronger in sentiment to move away from it?

I tried to search and find a definition in IANA of exactly what deprecated means, but with no luck.

Perhaps there is already a security definition of deprecated that could be referenced, or if not, it might be helpful to:
 - in Section 5, unambiguously specify what is meant by deprecated.
 - in Section 7, bind the definition of the Status column back to Section 5.

Regards,
Rob