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

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 06 November 2020 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDF13A0D98 for <>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:52:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXhZvl4RB_uK for <>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:52:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C4C93A0D86 for <>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:52:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EFD38C3C; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:52:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4Ff5ZPnbrB1w; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C7F38C38; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AF8E7; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:52:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "openpgp\" <>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>
cc: Benjamin Kaduk <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 16:52:23 -0500
Message-ID: <3997.1604699543@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] heads-up: re-chartering the OPENPGP WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 21:52:29 -0000

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <> wrote:
    > On Wed 2020-11-04 12:24:20 -0800, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
    >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:36:25AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
    >>> - Revise RFC4880.  The intent is to start from the current rfc4880bis draft.
    >> I'm happy to put that change in, as it reflects what I understand to be the
    >> universal or near-universal sentiment.

    > To be clear, i think the much of the work in the current rfc4880bis
    > draft does address the outstanding chartered items, has widespread
    > adoption and documented WG consensus, or is part of straightforward
    > editorial cleanup.  There are other parts of the current rfc4880bis that
    > do not address chartered items, are not widely deployed, or have not
    > gained consensus.

It seems to me that we need to:

1) adopt a document which is rfc4880-equivalent.
2) identify the pieces which have "widespread adoption" and/or are "editorial
   cleanup", so that we can clearly have documented WG consensus.
3) publish a document.
   I even wonder if that document might be Internet Standard, if the items
   are widely deployed.
   (Note that also involve cutting the pieces in 4880 that were never deployed)

4) re-cycle on the parts which did make the above cut.

    > For the former set, we will absolutely start from the text in the
    > current rfc4880bis.  For the parts that are in the latter set, we should
    > reserve any already-documented codepoints in 4880bis, and encourage
    > advocates who care to advance individual drafts that flesh them out
    > further.  For what it's worth, this latter set includes things that i
    > have advocated for, so i'll be following this approach myself.

I don't think we can start from the document which has been reposted because
they didn't have a WG to get consensus from.  We have to start from rfc4880.
Adding this bis pieces in a clear -01/-02 shouldn't take that long.
AT MOST, one IETF meeting cycle, less if we employ some virtual interims.

    > If the reformed WG can publish an actual rfc4880bis, as chartered and
    > with consensus and multiple implementations, then we should talk about
    > rechartering so we can adopt those individual drafts as WG items.

I agree.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]        |   ruby on rails    [

Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide