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

[holger krekel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen, Daniel, all, 

from Delta Chat's and its E2E-encrypting rPGP engine's side 
we only followed but didn't comment on iterations and discussions.
However, we are very grateful for all the efforts and look forward 
to implement the crypto-refresh rather sooner than later.
What a journey!

cheers and thanks again,
Holger and Friedel



On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 14:22 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We got one comment with some changes that Paul has
> incorporated into the editor's copy. I think that
> means the time has come to declare victory on the
> crypto-refresh draft. I'll work with dkg to craft
> a shepherd write-up and then hit the publication
> requested button.
> 
> Well done all! It's been a long effort but getting
> this draft out of the WG is an achievement. The
> next steps will be AD review and then IETF last
> call, IESG review and off to the RFC editor. That
> can take a while, esp for a complex document like
> this, but hopefully that'll all be slow but smooth
> progress.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> On 06/06/2023 16:17, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > As you've seen. Paul, dkg and others have produced a new
> > I-D [1] based on discussion at IETF-116 and subsequent
> > list discussion (including of some MRs). I've reviewed the
> > diff [2] and as far as I can see those changes correctly
> > reflect WG discussion and rough consensus. We've also
> > already done 2 WGLCs on this document and some of us are
> > understandably keen to move on to consider new work once
> > we've gotten this draft out of the WG, so we'd like us to
> > do that as soon as we can. (And not leave us time to find
> > yet more things to change, which'll inevitably happen if
> > we're slow;-)
> > 
> > That said, the diff [2] is non-trivial (took me >1 hour
> > to go over it) so we do need to allow some time for WG
> > participants to check these changes. We therefore ask
> > that people review the diff [2] in the next week to check
> > that nothing's amiss. If all is well, then we plan to
> > ask for publication at that time.
> > 
> > So, to summarise, please review the *diff* [2] and send
> > any changes *required* as an email reply to this mail, (with
> > OLD/NEW text if possible), before the end of June 13th
> > (anywhere on Earth).
> > 
> > If you have other comments relating to text outside of the
> > diff or to possible future work, please start a new thread
> > and we'll deal with that as needed.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Stephen and Daniel.
> > 
> > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh
> > [2] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-08&url2=draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-09&difftype=--html
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > openpgp mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp






> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp