Re: [openpgp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-openpgp-02-02: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 12:17:56PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > 1) is it necessary to include the first four paragraphs about the
>     > history ?
> 
> I think so.
> 
>     > 2) the charter insists on 'no delay' but the previous version of the
>     > charter is dated 2015... ;-)
> 
> well, that refers to new work, right?

The only "delay" in this text is saying that "if you work on stuff other
than the core deliverable, it can't delay the core deliverable".  So yes,
it refers to the "new" (non-core) work, regardless of any absolute delay in
the core work.

>     > 3) is the word 'entertain' the right one in "OpenPGP may be entertained
>     > by the working group" ? For a non-English speaker, the word 'entertain'
>     > is about getting fun but there seems to be other meaning
> 
> yes, it's correct.

Agreed.
I thought about alternatives like "considered" or "adopted" but neither has
quite the same connotation.  So I left this unchaged, at least for now.

>     > 5) I do not know about the context, but the last paragraph looks to me
>     > like requesting a WGLC before adoption. Also, it requires two reviews
>     > but what will happen if those two reviews are negative ?
> 
> It is odd.
> I think though, that the intent is WG is not going to standardize things that don't
> have support of a few implementors.

Yes; we need to have people looking at it.  I also left this unchanged (for
now), since if the reviews are negative that will be used as input to any
determination of consensus to adopt.

Thanks for the review Éric, and the responses Michael,

Ben