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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]> 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   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


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