IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 10 March 2021 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CE13A1554 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:12:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WZeQfjvN85o for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:12:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12AE63A1546 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E348389AD for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:17:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ohOfuPe1pgSI for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:17:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E5938991 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:17:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88F8439 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:12:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210310145410.GX56617@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <DM6PR11MB43808FA7D74229A5997965649FBA9@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9D01B155-6BB8-4438-8FAA-149686B69B64@vigilsec.com> <BN7PR11MB254762EDB050588E65B423B2C9869@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <038A4AA3-96A5-4827-BEEB-12B58F49102B@vigilsec.com> <b82901c00c6847fe9a8f420275d74ccc@cert.org> <DM6PR11MB43805BE3FEFD91A5BDD592EF9F939@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <f6b83156ae704d459125bf4157578e86@cert.org> <DM6PR11MB43806CB904AD424D1B925E799F919@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0CC020DD-215E-4B1A-BBB9-F849BE6F3A3C@akamai.com> <20210310145410.GX56617@kduck.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:12:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4262.1615414335@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/UxwN0TMfvpBj9Zv1I2HNdZzpOmE>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:12:22 -0000

    rs> I am concerned about having to decide the hybrid/multi-signature issue
    rs> NOW during the rechartering.  It's way too soon.  I think we need to
    rs> discuss the approaches in a technical context (i.e., as part of WG
    rs> discussions).  What's the best way to do that other than put vague
    rs> words into a charter?

I agree with Rich, btw.

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    > I think we've seen (other) WG charters that include discussion of a
    > topic to decide on an approach, with need to recharter to actually
    > produce spec documents on that topic.  Just one option of many, of
    > course...

I would be okay with that if rechartering could take less time.
I feel that this part should be just an exchange between chairs and
AD. i.e. adjustment or creation of some milestones.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email