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

[Derek Atkins <[e-mail]>]

HI,

On Wed, October 21, 2020 8:33 am, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 21/10/2020 13:01, Derek Atkins 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?
>
> Urgh, no:-)

Good to hear.

>>
>> Or is the plan to start from the current rfc4880bis draft and work from
>> there to get it across the finish line?
>
> More or less.
>
> There will of course need to be a discussion about WG
> adoption of a draft but IIUC the goal will be for that to
> basically start from the current bis draft. What I don't
> know is whether or not there are parts in the current draft
> that a WG would rather not have and how that might affect
> people's opinions on adoption. I do believe a WG would want
> almost all of the bis text so starting from testing that
> (via a WG adoption discussion) seems like a plan to me.
> But again, that's getting a bit ahead of ourselves.
>
>> The current wording in the charter leads me to the former and not the
>> latter process.  Can you please confirm?
>
> Feel free to suggest some words pointing out it's the
> latter. (Or I can try later on, if that's better.)

Maybe the simplest way would be to change:

The Working Group will perform the following work:

- Revise RFC4880

to read:

- Revise RFC4880.  The intent is to start from the current rfc4880bis draft.


> Cheers,
> S.

-derek

>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -derek
>>
>> On Tue, October 20, 2020 9:20 pm, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> The draft charter is at [1].
>>>
>>> Comments and discussion of that are more than welcome.
>>>
>>> From my POV, I'm happy to try help out to get a fairly
>>> minimal bit of progress progressed (as an RFC) - if we can
>>> usefully succeed in that (which isn't a given).
>>>
>>> FWIW, I do think starting with a very modest goal is
>>> likely a good plan for now. A bit of success (in terms
>>> of an RFC that is implemented, deployed and more up to
>>> date) is already not that easy, but success does
>>> breed success so if we got that done, then extending
>>> the charter based on success is not so hard.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-openpgp/
>>>
>>> On 21/10/2020 01:59, Ronald Tse wrote:
>>>> I second Derek’s message here, haven’t seen a proposed charter at the
>>>> mailing list?
>>>>
>>>> _____________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Ronald Tse
>>>> Ribose Inc.
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 8:55 AM, Derek Atkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, October 20, 2020 8:44 pm, Ángel wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 at 14:59 -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>>>>>> Please welcome the chairs for the now-in-proposed-state WG,
>>>>>>> Daniel Kahn Gillmor and Stephen Farrell!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking forward to many successful RFCs :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice to hear! Although I would be happy to see just a few for now
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is complete news to me; I have seen no proposed charter sent to
>>>>> this
>>>>> mailing list.
>>>>> Did I miss it?
>>>>>
>>>>> -derek
>>>>> --
>>>>>       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
>>>>>       [e-mail]             www.ihtfp.com
>>>>>       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> openpgp mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openpgp mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openpgp mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [e-mail]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant