Re: [openpgp] crypto-refresh finished? (again;-)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Werner,

On 21/06/2023 18:06, Werner Koch wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Given that question and suggestions from major implementors have not
> been properly discussed and taken in account, I doubt that there is
> sufficient consensus in the WG for a new RFC or even an IETF Last Call.

Process-wise, our AD has picked chairs and it's we who call
consensus so it's not useful for WG participants to try to
usurp that role as you've done above.

> In particular Kai Eggert's mail from 8 Oct 2022 "Re: [openpgp] a new
> draft overlapping the WG draft" [1] had well thought out suggestions
> which were never seriously discussed.  Ronald Tse's reply and questions
> as a followup on the same day stated for example:
> 
>    2. For those who have stayed long enough at the list, we remember that
>    the current iteration of the "OpenPGP WG" resulted from some advocates
>    trying to “shove out” the original 4880-bis. And 4880-bis did get
>    thrown out. This was not appreciated. The original intent of
>    reestablishing the WG was to “build on” 4880-bis, not throw it out.
> 
> and thus challenged whether the new I-D is covered by charter of this
> WG.

We had that discussion and called rough consensus back in
Oct/Nov 2022 and the WG were good with that. I'm sorry that
you're not part of that consensus but there is no need, and
no onus on us, to revisit that topic again now.

> The multiple roles of dkg as 1) WG chair, 2) contributor and Debian
> maintainer of Sequoia-PGP, (3) main force behind reformatting the
> original markup of rfc4880bis, (4) actual author of large parts of the
> crypto refresh draft was probably not helpful for a purposeful work on
> an intended and chartered small OpenPGP update.

As co-chair I'm entirely happy that all that was done well
and fairly. And I did explicitly consider that as we went.

> Since the OpenPGP WG was established more than 25 years ago, the group
> has produced and maintained specifications to everyone's satisfaction
> without throwing over actual use cases of OpenPGP.  We earned a well
> repudiation with this solid consensus based work.  I wish we can keep
> this and get back to a friendly and fair interaction; beating a
> specification update in the current way is not the right way.

Frankly Werner, I consider that your unwillingness to accept
that the WG consensus is not as you'd like has been the most
recent pressing problem in that space. Again, I think that's
a pity, but we did specifically discuss that situation and
resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the WG. I hope that
in time, you'll accept that you're in the rough (not an easy
thing especially for someone who's invested such effort in
this space over the years) and we can put that divergence
behind us all. But if not, as the WG have worked to ensure as
best we can that that divergence doesn't lead to interop
problems that could be avoided, things will pan out as they
will and the world won't end.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 
> Shalom-Salam,
> 
>     Werner
> 
> 
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/AJEE9_pmfV2SH9dd3EM6v2jEQpI
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/EgILWBGqU_qvbRLLdbR3jxvMZyc
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp