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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 21 October 2020 16:58 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 2CE533A115F for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:58:48 -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 rshVixGC2cjU for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB7FF3A086E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CC9389C4; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:05:01 -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 8G2H99ydc07c; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6597389C3; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79331D2; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:58:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com>, "openpgp\@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <c95cec411011a61ff99ea35d5eaa40b5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
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> <c95cec411011a61ff99ea35d5eaa40b5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
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: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:58:44 -0400
Message-ID: <18989.1603299524@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/JppFu7S-bAWIIpL0yIvKHW3Lz_o>
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 16:58:48 -0000

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> wrote:
    > So... IF I read this right, the plan is to start from RFC4880 and then
    > re-hash all the discussions we've had in the past decade+ to re-introduce
    > changes to it?

I think that the WG needs to go through the major diffs and gain consensus.
I don't think we need to follow all the dead ends, etc.  or the
word-smithing.

If there hasn't been any major restructuring of the document, then rfcdiff
ought to do 70% of the work here for us.  Someone just has to chop up what
remains, and generate a slide for each part and attach some motivation.

    > Or is the plan to start from the current rfc4880bis draft and work from
    > there to get it across the finish line?

    > The current wording in the charter leads me to the former and not the
    > latter process.  Can you please confirm?

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