Re: [openpgp] call for adoption of draft-koch-openpgp-rfc4880bis

Levi <> Thu, 30 June 2016 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4A412D5C6 for <>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IhByBbxHfgLS for <>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A1912D17E for <>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To: Message-Id:Date:Subject:To:From:Sender:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:References:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=PQigT2pSY2leeFedl7EbnkmVey9xPkBaSG2IxNPE0qg=; b=wFgTiyqjmHBbnUYhWLk0BUPqDS CEwqejiMtZM7tKFuD8iYT31wXV+cb7lmcILGHSgzAL7BF/qyH1/H9EtlHVd8GoYsK7riTYvIjLio5 0aLo7ZxVSGitRb1VqHPKRi6Dm7198mmAV7B1popACvrmpVkk042gOHxn767gcAvhPWBCGEBTE3SJj V0Ti7pZPx287wbTKRj/VTTr7mhvc1vYyGGlr4fFNFKY8Q9064JdPAREYGYjCC09QqYePMunlr4hn+ 07CyCGKkl1vqUeRV4iBJNveWw48FlcEqZerdHAALpn9jv/xAYFlMs/x2RRHJ7mwE6bUA8zC/EAwsX i+hUMZDA==;
Received: from [] (port=51929 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <>) id 1bISvf-0002iT-6c for; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:46:15 -0400
From: Levi <>
To: IETF OpenPGP <>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 03:46:20 +0000
Message-Id: <em96578ad1-5599-4919-bce0-a77eeab7ea65@desktop-6nlaf4c>
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB0A533B71-B876-497F-8197-358EE1C42313"
X-HMDNSGroup-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-HMDNSGroup-MailScanner-ID: 1bISvf-0002iT-6c
X-HMDNSGroup-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] call for adoption of draft-koch-openpgp-rfc4880bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Levi <>
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 03:46:35 -0000

+1 :)

------ Original Message ------
From: "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <>
To: "IETF OpenPGP" <>
Sent: 6/25/2016 11:30:53 AM
Subject: [openpgp] call for adoption of draft-koch-openpgp-rfc4880bis

>hey OpenPGP folks--
>We've had a slow start on 4880bis, but i'm hoping we can get things
>moving again.  One of the things we need to do bureaucratically is to
>officially adopt a specific draft as the basis of our ongoing work.
>Werner Koch has prepared and submitted the beginnings of the new
>revision of RFC 4880, the current version of which you can see here:
>This is a call for adoption of this draft by the OpenPGP WG.  Please
>speak up soon if you have any concerns, or if you think this document
>should not be adopted by the WG for some reason.  Please also speak up
>if you are in favor of adoption.
>A brief reminder of what adoption by the WG would mean:
>  * this draft would become the *starting point* for RFC 4880bis; the
>    draft is currently not complete, but it would be the basis upon 
>    the group would build the new proposal.
>  * Werner Koch would be the document editor, but the decisions about 
>    draft would be made by the working group.  I want to thank Werner 
>    his willingness to put in his time as the document editor.
>  * Since our charter (
>    is aimed primarily at making a revision to RFC 4880, we would
>    hopefully focus our efforts on contributing review and amendments to
>    this draft, with a goal of driving it to IETF Last Call within the
>    year.
>Please give feedback on draft adoption!
>    --dkg