Re: [openpgp] heads-up: re-chartering the OPENPGP WG

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 21 October 2020 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E693A09F4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id POAmNAXTjBSm for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4715E3A09EE for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4433899F; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 22:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ljPWpTG1Ux-T; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 22:14:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3DF3899D; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 22:14:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF36C212; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 22:07:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "openpgp\@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8e5fca53-4a3c-bb64-ef87-3a0f9d4bc11b@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20201020215929.GR39170@kduck.mit.edu> <260d532c97cfcf8285f68fa6080c809317646a76.camel@16bits.net> <73b6595fad9bd10d2772a5c6842adabc.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <0FC168CB-4394-4924-82B9-B40A15969FF0@ribose.com> <8e5fca53-4a3c-bb64-ef87-3a0f9d4bc11b@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 22:07:57 -0400
Message-ID: <3254.1603246077@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/H03Imj-ojNiCJv93phvCGSQO5NE>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] heads-up: re-chartering the OPENPGP WG
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 02:08:03 -0000

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
    > The draft charter is at [1].
    > Comments and discussion of that are more than welcome.

Thank you.

    > From my POV, I'm happy to try help out to get a fairly
    > minimal bit of progress progressed (as an RFC) - if we can
    > usefully succeed in that (which isn't a given).

    > FWIW, I do think starting with a very modest goal is
    > likely a good plan for now. A bit of success (in terms
    > of an RFC that is implemented, deployed and more up to
    > date) is already not that easy, but success does
    > breed success so if we got that done, then extending
    > the charter based on success is not so hard.

I'm not opposed to any of the work described.  It's all good.
Asynchronously to it, under the auspices of:

} 1. The work will not unduly delay the closure of the working group after
} the revision is finished (unless the working group is rechartered).

It seems that the key distributions servers suffer from a variety of
ailments.   DDOS attacks, and other privacy issues.

We also have draft-koch-openpgp-webkey-service in the DT,
which sure sounds like webfinger/rfc7033, yet isn't.

I think that there is some spec somewhere (maybe PHB's MMM) about asking for
keys via MIME.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide