Re: [openpgp] Requesting the editor to step down

Since our implementation (RNP) is mentioned, I’d like to clarify our stance — in the past 2 years, we have had zero issues with Werner’s editing of the draft.

From my experience he was always collegial and understanding regarding comments given on this mailing list (and in personal communication).

It seems that a number of objections were raised from personal interactions occurring outside of the list, and those are not representative of all members of the ex-“OpenPGP working group” (certainly not mine). It would be prudent to steer this discussion away from personality attacks.

I suggest that the current draft, which we have had significant consensus for the past many months, to move forward as the outcome instead of “rewriting the bis” which there has been no consensus on. This will resolve the complaints of “the editor is not acting”.

_____________________________________

Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

On Apr 27, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Nickolay Olshevsky <o.nickolay@gmail.com<mailto:o.nickolay@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi group,
While it’s almost the same and (mostly) duplicates contents of the previous messages, it adds links to some closed issues in GnuPG bug tracker.
Those seems to be closed absolutely logically, since were pointing to unsupported configurations/non-release GPG versions.
And I don’t think we should mix together development of some project(s) with work on internet draft.

Best regards,
Nickolay Olshevsky
o.nickolay@gmail.com<mailto:o.nickolay@gmail.com>

...
 - We created an interoperability test suite [0].  This test suite
   has been successful in identifying problems in many OpenPGP
   implementations.  We reported the problems that we found in the
   different implementations, and the response was almost universally
   positive.  The exception was the GnuPG project, where Werner
   outright dismissed any findings ([1], [2]).  Now, Werner is free
   to dismiss contributions in his personal project, but this alone
   should raise some red flags.

   0: https://tests.sequoia-pgp.org/
   1: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4725
   2: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4727

However, as editor of the RFC, he cannot treat contributors to OpenPGP
as he treats potential contributors to GnuPG, e.g., closing bug
reports with the reason "spite" [3].  The recent addition of the "key
block" subpacket to RFC4880bis which he committed on the same day as
the implementation in GnuPG suggests that Werner thinks that he has
the authority to change the standard like he changes GnuPG.  Changing
the standard should be a group effort, which we tried to engage in,
but were blocked by Werner.

 3: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4904

...

For the Sequoia-PGP team,
Justus
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp@ietf.org<mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp@ietf.org<mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp