I am serioulsy getting mixed messages in regards to this vulnerability. As to whether Cisco Deem this signature is critical enough or not. Releasing signture in disable it indicates the following based on Cisco's own puclished FAQ in regards to retired signatures found at http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/ips_sig_faq.html.

Which says:
Q: Why is signature X retired?

A: Signatures can be retired or disabled for a variety of reasons:

The signature is “old” and of very little value.
The vulnerability being detected is sufficiently old enough to be widely patched
The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the wild.
The signature is more than 2 years old
Specifications have changed and what was previously considered an indicator of malicious activity is now valid or no longer considered malicious. Any reporting of those signatures would essentially be false positives.

The signature has a resources impact.
The sensor resources are limited. Occasionally as new signatures are released, old signatures must be retired to ensure the sensor runs optimally.
There is no way to run all signatures with the resources constraint, so the default shipping signature set must run a subset of all signatures.
There have been reports of false positives and it is not possible to tune the signature to reduce false positives.
The signature effectively detects a vulnerability potentially being exploited, but has the potential in many environments to produce false positive alerts. It is therefore disabled or retired to prevent “noise” in other customers' networks.

At any time, the end customer is still able to enable and unretire a signature if the customer is still running the affected/vulnerable software and needs the protection provided by the signature.

So based on the above info these retired signatures does not fall on bullet points under The signature is “old” and of very little value. So likely falls under bullet points "The signature has a resources impact."

So if this is the case why then on the released blog about Heartbleed signature http://blogs.cisco.com/security/cisco-ips-signature-coverage-for-openssl-heartbleed-issue/ it does not provide specific impact of enabling these signatures?

What is straight clear answers as to the impact of these signatures, or its being left to customers to be guinea pigs?