Re: [openpgp] rechartering topics poll results...

"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org> Thu, 26 October 2023 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <neal@walfield.org>
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 4CC10C151084 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8Ln66GA7IW82 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.dasr.de (mail.dasr.de [202.61.250.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49660C151086 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p5de925c3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.233.37.195] helo=forster.huenfield.org) by mail.dasr.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <neal@walfield.org>) id 1qw1zh-0007oX-AU; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:09:57 +0200
Received: from grit.huenfield.org ([192.168.20.9] helo=grit.walfield.org) by forster.huenfield.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <neal@walfield.org>) id 1qw1zg-005TJC-N2; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:09:56 +0200
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 17:09:56 +0200
Message-ID: <87lebps9mj.wl-neal@walfield.org>
From: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8e00e273-7666-4d59-b9da-0a6dadfb673c@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <0022669a-083a-4407-a53e-73fb83b0623e@cs.tcd.ie> <8e00e273-7666-4d59-b9da-0a6dadfb673c@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.20.9
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: neal@walfield.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on forster.huenfield.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/yaiyNZeiQ9QkOoage6wizr5SCjI>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] rechartering topics poll results...
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: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:10:03 -0000

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 16:56:47 +0200,
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Before we try send some new charter text to the IESG for
> approval, it'd be great to get a few more positive acks
> that the plan below is ok with folks,

That looks like a good plan to me!

:) Neal

> On 21/10/2023 13:53, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Thanks to those who took the time to take part in our poll
> > to try figure out how to prioritise the list of topics that
> > you'd like to see the WG tackle in future.
> > 
> > dkg and I had a call to discuss the results [1] of our poll
> > for initial topics, to try turn those results into milestones
> > for our updated WG charter. [2]
> > 
> > It looks to us like the poll respondents may well have picked
> > an initial 4 that might make sense for the WG so we'd like to
> > check that now. Recall that our plan is to add from the other
> > topics mentioned in the charter as milestones are completed or
> > parked, so we're not ruling things out here, we're just saying
> > which topics we'll tackle first.
> > 
> > We think our poll results could map to these initial milestones:
> > 
> > "
> >     - November 2023 - call for adoption of drafts related to
> >       post quantum cryptography to produce a proposed standard
> >       RFC
> >     - January 2024 - call for adoption of drafts related to
> >       superseded keys to produce a proposed standard RFC
> >     - January 2024 - call for adoption of drafts related to
> >       persistent symmetric keys to produce a proposed standard
> >       RFC
> >     - March 2024 - call for adoption of drafts related to
> >       WKD and/or HKP to produce a proposed standard RFC
> > "
> > 
> > The above basically stages the top 4 from the poll but
> > with a bit of a nod to recent list discussion related to
> > WKD/HKP. (On that last, if we plan a call for adoption in
> > 6 months time, we've plenty of time to think more.)
> > 
> > That looks to the chairs like it may be tractable set of
> > topics to try address in a reasonable time-frame so we'd
> > like to get your feedback on that as an outcome by the
> > 27th of October. If we think your feedback is that the
> > above has captured the rough consensus of the WG then
> > we'll add those milestones to the charter text [1] and
> > send that to our AD asking that the IESG process
> > re-chartering the WG on that basis. Positive feedback
> > that this is an ok set of initial milestones would be
> > welcome. (If the overall WG feedback goes in some other
> > direction we'll need to go into a chair-huddle again to
> > see what to try next;-)
> > 
> > Three other things to note:
> > 
> > 1) these milestones are for calls for adoption - that
> > gives people interested in these topics time to write
> > and/or polish drafts before the WG discusses adoption
> > so we do not have to only consider the current set of
> > drafts related to each topic
> > 
> > 2) in the case of PQC we can probably start discussion
> > right now, as it's very clear the WG want to do work
> > there - watch for a separate mail on the agenda for our
> > upcoming Prague meeting
> > 
> > 3) it could be that this initial set of topics might
> > lead to a situation where the overall set of editors
> > of WG documents places too much work on a set of people
> > with one sponsor, which'd be possibly unfair on those
> > people. So, as the WG adopt drafts on different topics,
> > the chairs may sometimes have to seek out new editors
> > if we run into that situation. (That's actually always
> > the official IETF process but changing editors at the
> > time of adoption doesn't happen that much, so we thought
> > it worth calling out this potential issue.)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > dkg & Stephen.