Re: [Openpgp-dt] a bit of a pause in progress

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 20/09/2022 21:14, Daniel Huigens wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for the update, and good luck with resolving this!
> 
> Personally, I think the WG has partially already told us what to do.
> To pick a concrete example, the poll for binding keys to AEAD modes
> at IETF 114 was 17 to 0 in favor. The crypto refresh draft does so,
> and this draft doesn't. So on that point, we should go with what the
> crypto refresh says. Similarly for the other points on which we had
> polls. But yeah, it may be worth having some high level discussion
> about what to do with the two drafts. But for me it's fairly clear
> which one matches the WG consensus more closely (unless the IETF 114
> polls didn't reflect the WG consensus somehow).

Understood. The existence of the new draft is new information
though so could affect consensus (or not). Once we (chairs)
have enough information, we'll ask the WG list and see where
that goes.

Cheers,
S.

PS: a 17-0 poll isn't really what gets us rough consensus
(but is helpful), if you want to read much more about that
kind of thing: [1] :-)

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7282/

> 
> Best,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, September 20th, 2022 at 11:07, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
>> Hi DT folks,
>>
> 
>> First, I want to apologise for being awol for the last
>> couple of weeks - I was busy with other stuff is my
>> lame excuse;-)
>>
> 
>> Second, I've recently become aware that a new draft has
>> been published [1] that might be confusing (I'm confused
>> by it anyway;-) so we'd like to ask that you give dkg
>> and I (as chairs) a few days to try setup a call with
>> Werner so we can understand how to present this to the
>> WG list for discussion there. (I've mailed Werner so
>> hope to have that call in the next day or two.) If we
>> don't manage to have that call this week, we plan to
>> take this to the list on Monday anyway (to ask how the
>> WG would like to proceed).
>>
> 
>> In the meantime, it's probably best we sit on our
>> hands with the crypto-refresh draft until the WG have
>> had a chance to discuss. Optimistically, I'd hope the
>> WG will tell us what to do after a few days discussion,
>> but I guess we'll see.
>>
> 
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
> 
>> PS: In case it's not obvious, dkg wasn't an active co-author
>> for [1], I guess Werner was just preserving existing author
>> names.
>>
> 
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koch-openpgp-2015-rfc4880bis/
>> --
>> Openpgp-dt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp-dt