Re: [openpgp] [[e-mail]] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880b

[Derek Atkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Thu, September 3, 2020 5:28 am, Vincent Breitmoser wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
>> However, technically, Werner has the right to do as he pleases because,
>> as
>> I've said before, there is no working group.  Also, technically, anyone
>> else
>> could take up the reigns and create an alternative 4880bis.
>
> I don't understand how any other course of action besides "it's closed,
> therefore we can't publish under that namespace" could be valid here.

Because that's not how the process works.  If there is no active WG on a
topic, then the IESG can publish a document as a standards-track document,
even one that updates one created by a WG.  This is the situation that
OpenPGP is in right now, an AD would sponsor the draft to progress it
through the process.  Any objections would have to be made during the IESG
review process.

> Apparently
> we are going with "it's closed, therefore anyone can publish whatever they
> want,
> even if their integrity as an editor has been actively contested".

This is, unfortunately, true -- with the caveat that the IESG can still
block a document from being published.  Keep in mind that your final
phrase "integrity as an editor..." does not apply to what is, effectively,
an individual submission.

I think the issue is that while the DataTracker has a process to lift a
document from individual to WG draft, there is no process to "downgrade" a
WG document back to an individual document if the WG closes and they want
to continue working on the document -- which is what happened here.

In other words, you cannot think of this as a WG document, it's a
mis-named individual draft with the expectation that an AD will take it up
and progress it as a standards document.

>> If you want to talk about working group consensus, THAT is definitely
>> NOT
>> a place where WG Consensus can or should happen.
>
> Agreed. I only brought it up as informative.
>
>> IMHO, that conversation should have been had on this list prior to the
>> draft being updated.
>
> Also agreed. But it didn't. Perhaps we should think about why that is, and
> work
> towards changing it.

Honestly, I don't know why the conversation didn't happen on this list,
and yes, that does bother me if the goal is to try to maintain some level
of rough consensus on the remnants of the OpenPGP WG membership (which is
here, not on the gnupg lists).

>  - V

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