Re: [openpgp] Using Git for RFC 4880bis

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Mon, 27 June 2016 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 2841F12D595 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ritter.vg
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 7D4Ki2TnqiIQ for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4DEE12D594 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id j3so2577694vkb.0 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=V4QbmMVlMQGqE364a33w8CuAdNAgv7ztnRa7dsrjXHc=; b=I+h4/tfPv9UkvUkavECAiKRjshZIe6BqhHp45+FVZCRAvPeJ6Oog5S8aaCfeq5YVIT q4sWNo1m1pkZMTeEf7wPNeXnyaca36lnhgwmuOMmYYjk+ktlFBorirNEy7AveAkJNgke l5b1V1FDyArZ30jI/nAJ55fjvHm2+5Xxd76OM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V4QbmMVlMQGqE364a33w8CuAdNAgv7ztnRa7dsrjXHc=; b=eyXAGwvpCJK/ywuvcQ5tcAHWPP4+rRB97W5AWS6ZQeLrQPtIySgLk8RFPXSirjuFPy lou26AIOHj49g+0oxWkdbuuXp9b48ETZCav7kD+lZdWmcHb4gzBHQkxwoCCVx8HdaQWc OfmJ8FpgXDpOgcYJ8Cen+A/Y9dxJChHHG7HttEeWsdP7z4m+RkjwegmgtVd/+Eh5SMJU F3Y/BWPJUXnN7FBVRIItEK0Tzm/GzyBAlSXIXdYqQCEVXvau4JY5UzGVZt5OH12n9//L aXn0g0s0GhS4NVQz0A+OFGfzpEqnG96Kk9x4j2XxzY1hP8YdXh3Yt1ZQ/7BL6F2ALPsr 3UgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIpAMjUW9QIEdnYXo6jfvwGP2g24GG9HZiN+D9004QcpxYbQbyuVdV0VwBcCKnamHFN/TqEuNf7WxaUr/5H
X-Received: by 10.31.171.74 with SMTP id u71mr7803980vke.119.1466994982729; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.141.201 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <877fddjmxs.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
References: <877fddjmxs.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:36:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+cU71nO1yt0MuyD36XEzN0XsxVPH3qfFtt3TGtjongQ7rpqgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/pVhnyXyu2ELGZBpF7bWQKwqxE88>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Using Git for RFC 4880bis
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 02:36:32 -0000

Can we use the Issues tracker (either in Gitlab or the IETF tools, but
not both) to note what changes are outstanding (but encourage people
to send the text proposals to the list)?  It would be helpful to have
some sort of list of outstanding changes we have rough consensus to
make but lack text proposals.  For example, using a real authenticated
mode instead of the MDC is a definite. I'm not sure if a
streaming-friendly mode there is consensus for, but it could be noted
as 'under discussion' or something.

-tom