Re: [openpgp] crypto-refresh finished? (again;-)

[Vincent Breitmoser <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Stephen. From my perspective, you have said all there is to say 
here.

I would like to encourage everyone to focus on the way forward for the 
spec, and let this part of the conversation rest.

Cheers

  - V

On 22.06.23 00:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hi Werner,
> 
> On 21/06/2023 18:06, Werner Koch wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Given that question and suggestions from major implementors have not
>> been properly discussed and taken in account, I doubt that there is
>> sufficient consensus in the WG for a new RFC or even an IETF Last Call.
> 
> Process-wise, our AD has picked chairs and it's we who call
> consensus so it's not useful for WG participants to try to
> usurp that role as you've done above.
> 
>> In particular Kai Eggert's mail from 8 Oct 2022 "Re: [openpgp] a new
>> draft overlapping the WG draft" [1] had well thought out suggestions
>> which were never seriously discussed.  Ronald Tse's reply and questions
>> as a followup on the same day stated for example:
>>
>>    2. For those who have stayed long enough at the list, we remember that
>>    the current iteration of the "OpenPGP WG" resulted from some advocates
>>    trying to “shove out” the original 4880-bis. And 4880-bis did get
>>    thrown out. This was not appreciated. The original intent of
>>    reestablishing the WG was to “build on” 4880-bis, not throw it out.
>>
>> and thus challenged whether the new I-D is covered by charter of this
>> WG.
> 
> We had that discussion and called rough consensus back in
> Oct/Nov 2022 and the WG were good with that. I'm sorry that
> you're not part of that consensus but there is no need, and
> no onus on us, to revisit that topic again now.
> 
>> The multiple roles of dkg as 1) WG chair, 2) contributor and Debian
>> maintainer of Sequoia-PGP, (3) main force behind reformatting the
>> original markup of rfc4880bis, (4) actual author of large parts of the
>> crypto refresh draft was probably not helpful for a purposeful work on
>> an intended and chartered small OpenPGP update.
> 
> As co-chair I'm entirely happy that all that was done well
> and fairly. And I did explicitly consider that as we went.
> 
>> Since the OpenPGP WG was established more than 25 years ago, the group
>> has produced and maintained specifications to everyone's satisfaction
>> without throwing over actual use cases of OpenPGP.  We earned a well
>> repudiation with this solid consensus based work.  I wish we can keep
>> this and get back to a friendly and fair interaction; beating a
>> specification update in the current way is not the right way.
> 
> Frankly Werner, I consider that your unwillingness to accept
> that the WG consensus is not as you'd like has been the most
> recent pressing problem in that space. Again, I think that's
> a pity, but we did specifically discuss that situation and
> resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the WG. I hope that
> in time, you'll accept that you're in the rough (not an easy
> thing especially for someone who's invested such effort in
> this space over the years) and we can put that divergence
> behind us all. But if not, as the WG have worked to ensure as
> best we can that that divergence doesn't lead to interop
> problems that could be avoided, things will pan out as they
> will and the world won't end.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>>
>>
>> Shalom-Salam,
>>
>>     Werner
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/AJEE9_pmfV2SH9dd3EM6v2jEQpI
>> [2] 
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/EgILWBGqU_qvbRLLdbR3jxvMZyc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openpgp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp