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

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Peter Gutmann writes:
> Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]> writes:
> I think it was more than just that, if you look at what you'd need to do for
> an -02 client, so "General Packet Format" to the end of "Requests From the
> Client to the Server" that's fifteen pages.  In -13 the same thing is forty-
> two pages (!!), and also draws in chunks of NFSv4 by reference.  It's gone
> from being a means of getting a file from A to B to trying to reinvent NFS,
> with all the attendant complexity.

All this work and changes was done in the secsh wg and did nt require
any rechartering or wg forming. Different people do have different
opinions who things should be done, and it seems the new editors of
the draft added quite a lot of stuff, most likely by the request of
the working group.

> I can see why an implementer would want to stop at -02, which is exactly what
> I did when I had to do an SFTP implementation, -13 had reached the point where
> it was growing without bounds with little to no benefit from the massive
> complexity being added to it.

And most likely the issue there was that the implementors did not
want to come to the WG meetings anymore because of the personal
conflicts between people. I did hear some people saying to me that
they do not want to go to the secsh wg meetings at all because going
there will cause them to get shitstorm destined to you and they did
not want to receive such things.

So in the end there was not enough people working on the protocol and
thats why it got where it ended up.

None of this is failure is because of "hassle in setting up WG", or
"rigorous rechartering" issues. There was existing working group that
was workin on the document, it was just failure of people working in
the existing wg and failure to reach consensus on filexfer draft. It
was not setting up wg would be too hard, or that the ietf process
would be broken in general.
-- 
[e-mail]