IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 02 September 2020 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 387D63A1093 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 3e07ZaauKK-N for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F6C3A1091 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Bhd442YZ6z7R1; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 23:53:40 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1599083620; bh=PExYjl1WqZiVY2ZxKMuA2RssRKX4LmO4t9gxtdaQ0jQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=AJuNKZjoD/SWP+lJL4mEOmUmTgsIWFr9LrSMDJnA1PygBqbtgrrEEl65M0IQ60CHZ QrCietPkzmuDzsLjF/LYjqRbBiXDWzHbKxTdHtyMjwRw+XlICGH200nOWs6Fxo54S5 y+Rdy3ZKxmU/d2fiVtFapB1yPLp1FQgwRGR+7fas=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RbG03w5NASrt; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 23:53:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 23:53:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E59096020EEA; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2B4669F1; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:53:36 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
cc: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <d45099120b229fd6a3d223b4e32c68f5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021750050.850851@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <87pn763mvq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021248000.848176@bofh.nohats.ca> <faf8cb6e433e259dff5f8554fbf4e9eb.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <87r1rkys6m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021446110.850851@bofh.nohats.ca> <d45099120b229fd6a3d223b4e32c68f5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/KYaccs91RFPL8HnNFl9F7Tqc4Nw>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt
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, 02 Sep 2020 21:53:45 -0000

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Derek Atkins wrote:

> Small pedantic nit -- there is no WG, so technically there is no WG
> consensus to be had.

It was my understanding that there was some thought about re-opening it
to get the bis document out. But that WG chairs were needed. One issue
on re-opening would be how to handle the document author being one main
implementation author writing things that some felt did not have WG
consensus.

That is why I was asking this. I'd like to know if this an update from
Werner or an update from a consensus on this list - WG or no WG at the
moment.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email