Re: [openpgp] How to re-launch the OpenPGP WG

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> Fri, 27 March 2015 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <calestyo@scientia.net>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DC41A879A for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 lMONJqXDEZUX for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw02.dd24.net (mailgw-02.dd24.net [193.46.215.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9ABF1A878B for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net (mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.26]) by mailgw02.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75EF95FB52 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:13:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net
Received: from mailgw02.dd24.net ([192.168.1.36]) by mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net (mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10236) with ESMTP id ZxajBTeOub4U for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from heisenberg.fritz.box (ppp-188-174-180-118.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.180.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw02.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1427415236.24976.13.camel@scientia.net>
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:13:56 +0100
In-Reply-To: <55134455.2070606@iang.org>
References: <878uf2iehi.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <5510C26E.7070409@iang.org> <87mw32omzs.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <55134455.2070606@iang.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha-512"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="=-YjNaaPRKV2chOT2kjEfn"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/JeELuqittHcg20gGSkWkycfhwO8>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] How to re-launch the OpenPGP WG
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:14:04 -0000

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 23:27 +0000, ianG wrote: 
> SHA3 because it has sponge, it can do MACs, it can do stream ciphers, it 
> can do authenticated stream ciphers, it can brew the morning tea if you 
> plug it in the right way.
+1


> Here's my big criticism of the IETF process:  like all processes it 
> eventually ends up becoming a place for people to create silos of 
> knowledge and careers, and eventually divorces itself from what's 
> happening out there in the real world.  But it holds the keys to some 
> powerful Internet protocol components, and while it's not bringing in 
> the new, outside knowledge, the IETF WG becomes the blockage, the inner 
> sanctum, the guilds that the IETF swore to bring down.
> 
> So what do we do?  Leave?  Stay?  Fight?
So do you have any better proposal idea?

Anything more governmental (ISO, national standardisation bodies) or
more commercial (ECMA) would IMHO be quite bad (since they're all known
to be rather on the dark side of the force, and while they may have
cookies, it's probably not what we should want).

Not much is left the in the free/community world.... W3? Far too much in
committee mode either, far to easily influenced by big players (see the
whole HTML5 DRM stuff).

Doing it independently... doesn't seem appealing either.


I'd say IETF is quite the right place.


Cheers,
Chris.