Re: [secdir] [Cfrg] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/17/19 10:23 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> +1.  Mind you given the hassle in setting up a WG for it and getting things
> through the IETF, it might be easier to just set up a Github repository for
> documentation on what does what and how and rely on Google to point people to
> it.

I think this may be closer to the core issue ("the hassle in
setting up a WG").  Moving something from the IRTF to the IETF
is likely to slow down the publication process, frankly.  IRTF
RFCs do require review by the IRSG and the IESG but they are
not IETF consensus documents (see RFC 5743 for details on the
IRTF document stream process).  Second, note that CFRG does not
typically work on protocols, per se, and when it does it's
limited to things like specific key exchange mechanisms rather
than all-the-things-missing-from-pgp.

I agree there's a broader problem here but I don't see how it
would be addressed by moving CFRG, which doesn't work on most of
the problem areas mentioned, anyway, to a body with weightier
process requirements and slower processes.

I'll note that we haven't seen that many drafts addressing these
proposed ssh extensions and given that we're a document-driven
organization that also makes progress difficult.  I'm personally
very interested in lowering barriers to contribution.  That's
a tough one to address because tautology, but seems related to
your concerns.

Melinda


-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis