Re: OpenPGP Minutes / Quick Summary

Ian G <iang@systemics.com> Sat, 15 July 2006 15:09 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1lle-00027U-Ej for openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:09:18 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1llb-00057C-Pl for openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:09:18 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k6FDph1i074828; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:51:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id k6FDphvV074827; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:51:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from www2.futureware.at ([217.19.43.211]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k6FDpgu2074812 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:51:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www2.futureware.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE2A1E8070; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:51:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <44B8F1E6.4050406@systemics.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:47:18 +0200
From: Ian G <iang@systemics.com>
Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
Subject: Re: OpenPGP Minutes / Quick Summary
References: <sjmveq2foz6.fsf@cliodev.pgp.com> <44B7A402.6070607@systemics.com> <sjmejwnc8r9.fsf@cliodev.pgp.com>
In-Reply-To: <sjmejwnc8r9.fsf@cliodev.pgp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745

Derek Atkins wrote:
> Ian G <iang@systemics.com> writes:
> 
>>> in two weeks.  He asked if we really still have enough interest to
>>> remain a working group.  In particular do we have 10 reviewers working
>>> on the draft.  The Chair was tasked with asking the mailing list and
>>> seeing how many reviewers we really have.  If we do not have
>>> sufficient quorum then Sam will shut us down and ask that any future
>>> work be submitted as individual drafts (including taking 2440bis(ter?)
>>> to Draft Standard).
>>
>> Does he mean, 10 people on the mailing list
>> that comment on the draft?  That should be
>> easy to show.
> 
> He means 10 people on the mailing list that comment on the
> drafts.  Basically, the question is:  how many people do we
> have reading and commenting on drafts.  Even a comment "I have
> read this draft and see nothing wrong with it" counts.  But
> he wants to know that we have at least 10 people willing to
> do that in order to keep moving forward.


Oh, I see.  Easily.  See, there are many aspects
to the draft, and many people don't comment on
all the stuff.  I for example will comment on the
cleartext signature stuff because it is critical
to my work but I won't be so easily tempted to
comment on the arcania of the key id extensions,
because I strip the keys down to minimum in my
app.

< http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html >

Whereas someone like Hal (just picking randomly here)
is more interested in the deeper crypto and security
puzzles within.  E.g., Hal was very involved in that
PGP Inc announcement last year of a security weakness,
which was great work, but to me was outside scope.

I suppose we might not see 10 people in any one
debate.  In the sum of all debates, there are in
excess of 10 people.



Also, frankly, I will say that one of the things
that slows me down from getting "vocally interested"
in it is that it has gone on too long - I bite my
toungue because more debate is more slow.

I'd rather the thing moved into draft status
*now* or preferably 6 years ago than argue about
something of marginal importance.  My silence
should not be seen as lack of support but support
for forward movement :)

I guess I disagree with the question then.  There
are more than 10 people here, but in my eyes, there
may be less than 10 "reviewers" and that is good,
because the time for review is over.

What can we do to make it ID?  I don't want more
review, I approve personally as it is, flaws and
all.

All just IMHO, not meant to represent anyone else's
opinions.


>> There are probably 10 implementations out
>> there...  Of the implementations I know:
> [snip]
> 
> I'm not sure that the number of implementations necessarily maps
> to the number of people who are reviewing the drafts.   It SHOULD
> map, but doesn't necessarily map.

There is always a group that "free-ride" and
don't participate in the writing of the doc.
That's ok, they participate in other ways by
spreading the standard, and they accept the
results they are given.

iang