Re: [Cfrg] [secdir] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019, at 14:11, denis bider wrote:
> SSH is full of underdocumented, partly functional custom extensions (to 
> cryptography, compression, SFTP, port forwarding, host key 
> synchronization, VPN, and more), most of which *could* be better 
> designed, better documented and standardized - if only there was a 
> continuing forum and people did not have to go through this "rigorous" 
> chartering process.

I'm sure that if you wanted to start an SSH maintenance working group to fix all that, the IETF would be receptive to that.  We did that for HTTP a few years ago and it has been somewhat successful.  Note that it doesn't take a very large group to actually drive an effort like this, but it is not especially easy or glamorous work.  The main threat to success is not getting major implementations properly invested, but if you can clear that hurdle, I'm sure you would find the IETF to be very supportive.

That sounds nothing like a problem with CFRG though.  In all this, I've heard nothing but good things about the work that goes on here, and now that I've the opportunity to add my voice: I too believe that the CFRG is currently working. A change would be somewhere between unwise and idiotic.  For all of the aforementioned reasons.