MD2 to Historic Status
draft-turner-md2-to-historic-10

[Ballot comment]
Comment transferred from my previous process Discuss.

I fully support knocking MD2 on the head. However, I am a little
inexperienced with the process of making an I-D Historic.

What happens to an standards track documents with references
(especially normative references) to 1319 as listed in Section 3?
Should they at least also be marked as "updated by" this draft?

Similarly, 1319 updates 1115. What happens to 1115 and its text
on MD2?

[Ballot discuss]
A quick Discuss as much on process as anything else...

I fully support knocking MD2 on the head. However, I am a little
inexperienced with the process of making an I-D Historic.

What happens to an standards track documents with references
(especially normative references) to 1319 as listed in Section 3?
Should they at least also be marked as "updated by" this draft?

Similarly, 1319 updates 1115. What happens to 1115 and its text
on MD2?

[Ballot comment]
Updates: 1319 (once approved)

- why not Obsolete: 1319 ? This document is moving RFC 1319 to Historic.

3. Documents that Reference RFC 1319

  MD2 has been specified in the following RFCs:

*Use* of MD2 has been specified ...

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Sean Turner is the document Shepherd. He believes that it is ready
for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The authors requested reviews from both the pkix, saag, and smime IETF
list members as well as the cfrg IRTF list members. There is no
concern about the breadth of reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

The shepherd feels there is no need for a wider review.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

One issue raised during the review was whether the IESG can move a
document to historic that documents a company's algorithm (one person
thought this document came through the Independent stream - the
tracker shows 1319 came through the IETF stream). To avoid this
issue, RSA was contacted and provided a statement indicating that they
are fine with deprecating RFC 1319. This statement can be found in
Section 7.

Another issue raised was whether informational documents can be moved
to historic. Specifically, Simon Josefsson and Joe Touch questioned
what it meant to move an informational document to historic. Scott
Bradner was consulted (and his response was forward with consent to
the saag, pkix, smime, and cfrg lists) that it "seemed appropriate"
when "we want to say "do not use"". Peter Gutmann, for one, suggested
that it "helps to have something like this [draft] formally retired so
you have a document to point to when someone wants to use (or continue
to use) MD2."

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

This is not the product of a WG. No one objected to deprecating MD2,
but Simon Josefsson (who admitted he was playing devil's advocate)
suggested maybe another way to achieve the same goal; namely,
deprecate MD2's use in protocols that use it. Joe Touch also
suggested an "security algorithms roadmap" to suggest what algorithm
was useful in which protocol. With the addition of the security
considerations for MD2, some of these issues have been addressed.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

There has been no threat of appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The shepherd has verified that the document satisfies all ID nits.
Note that the obsolete references are purposely included.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document does not split its references. All references in this
informative document are informative.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document shepherd has verified that the IANA considerations
section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. This
document specifies a new column for the Hash Functional Textual Name
Registry that indicates the status of the algorithm: obsolete,
deprecated (it will before it gets to the IESG), common, and limited
use. It assigns the values for md2 to obsolete and the others in the
list to common.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There is no formal language in this document.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document recommends the retirement of MD2 and discusses the
reasons for doing so. This document recommends RFC 1319 be moved to
Historic status. This document also updates the IANA Hash Algorithm
Registry.

Working Group Summary

The discussion about this draft was mostly about how to deprecate MD2
not whether to do it. As a result of comments, the draft was expanded
to update the security considerations for MD2.

Document Quality

Prominent reviewers are noted in earlier answers and in the draft's
acknowledgment section.

Personnel

Sean Turner is the Document Shepherd.
Robert Sparks is the Responsible Area Director

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three
IANA Actions that need to be completed.

First, in the Hash Function Textual Names registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xhtml

A new, fourth column is to be added to the registry. The title of the
fourth column will be the word "Usage"

Acceptable values under the column "Usage" will be: COMMON, LIMITED USE
or OBSOLETE.

Second, the new column created in the Hash Function Textual Names
Registry, the registry will be updated as follows:

Hash Function Name OID Usage Reference
"md2" 1.2.840.113549.2.2 Obsolete [RFC-to-be]
"md5" 1.2.840.113549.2.5 Common [RFC3279]
"sha-1" 1.3.14.3.2.26 Common [RFC3279]
"sha-224" 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.4 Common [RFC4055]
"sha-256" 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1 Common [RFC4055]
"sha-384" 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.2 Common [RFC4055]
"sha-512" 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.3 Common [RFC4055]

Third, the registration procedures for the Hash Function Textual Names
registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xhtml

will be updated to indicate that new registrations must abide by the
registration procedures in both RFC4752 and the RFC-to-be.

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones that need to
be completed upon approval of this document.