From nobody Fri Oct  7 04:42:14 2022
Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.com>
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 5C1B7C1522B7
 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  7 Oct 2022 04:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5,
 RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
 header.d=andrewg.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194])
 by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id H8V01atRJVAj for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Fri,  7 Oct 2022 04:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fum.andrewg.com (fum.andrewg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c011:23ad::1])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E77DEC14CF11
 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri,  7 Oct 2022 04:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [176.61.115.103])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 424515F1AA
 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri,  7 Oct 2022 11:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com;
 s=andrewg-com; t=1665142925;
 bh=dvIe/TeHRvUWRNsRFqgn6aWfPXc7gSINA/ICKAr0W2Y=;
 h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=Y5Mkh+EcNIINpV9zjzVHUw/2haFhDOTel4XMnlOpKircsvxKfq5TomrqLwsiPm7Bw
 0tvwf97HHAAa4GLneCJZMvb0gAvq0k1fgP5vI8f+9u72zQbX9es309UVQ4YqUEOrIL
 8mqd1u2mK7S/P5W0bBUCnY7SF73RQIYufCaGLtNlC9qQKMGSjYlxrSEeEmF+bdNvff
 MGXKdM1Ek/FK8nInhsFdrqZzjN+o4qlt61MJ6BtG77DGVAKqurqhw51JN9FioI7mSA
 ZtCmPQjIa4imVs65Uf6XZWVt05hGQk4BreQ6X2iZrUbnDCDasBHKTLZUQqR5VoViwZ
 11beqQnFL1Ubw==
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_53CEA17C-18C0-4C84-B928-F9A4441CF7C4";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 12:41:57 +0100
References: <086DCEE6-1AB7-4453-9EEA-AFCDFD1715F4@mit.edu>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <086DCEE6-1AB7-4453-9EEA-AFCDFD1715F4@mit.edu>
Message-Id: <8414860D-5CE6-407E-A78A-E21A03CDCC52@andrewg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/g_QfSifY8smse4N_wEYpVSUHc9k>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] a new draft overlapping the WG draft
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 11:42:14 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_53CEA17C-18C0-4C84-B928-F9A4441CF7C4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

I am becoming increasingly concerned that this list is flirting with the =
prospect of a fork in the standard, and that a significant driver of =
this appears to be a long-running, personalised dispute between =
particular implementers. If such a fork were to happen, I fear this =
would effectively kill OpenPGP.

Such an outcome would benefit *nobody*.

Please can we confine our discussions to technical matters? If we =
absolutely must defer some decisions in order to get agreement now then =
so be it, and maybe it will allow tempers to cool in the meantime. =
However I would strongly encourage the group to avoid threats (implied =
or otherwise) of unilateral action or retribution, and agree that we are =
all here in order to better serve *our users*, not ourselves.

If we cannot place the end user=E2=80=99s interests at the centre of our =
decision-making process, we might as well all go home.

A


--Apple-Mail=_53CEA17C-18C0-4C84-B928-F9A4441CF7C4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=vPEa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_53CEA17C-18C0-4C84-B928-F9A4441CF7C4--

