Subject: [openpgp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-openpgp-02-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 01:49:17 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-openpgp-02-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-openpgp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While I support the creation of the WG, I have some comments on the charter:

1) is it necessary to include the first four paragraphs about the history ?

2) the charter insists on 'no delay' but the previous version of the charter is
dated 2015... ;-)

3) is the word 'entertain' the right one in "OpenPGP may be entertained by the
working group" ? For a non-English speaker, the word 'entertain' is about
getting fun but there seems to be other meaning

4) in"the working group will accept no I-D" s/accept/adopt/ ?

5) I do not know about the context, but the last paragraph looks to me like
requesting a WGLC before adoption. Also, it requires two reviews but what will
happen if those two reviews are negative ?

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:17:56 -0500

> 1) is it necessary to include the first four paragraphs about the

I think so.

    > 2) the charter insists on 'no delay' but the previous version of the
    > charter is dated 2015... ;-)

well, that refers to new work, right?

    > 3) is the word 'entertain' the right one in "OpenPGP may be entertained
    > by the working group" ? For a non-English speaker, the word 'entertain'
    > is about getting fun but there seems to be other meaning

yes, it's correct.

    > 5) I do not know about the context, but the last paragraph looks to me
    > like requesting a WGLC before adoption. Also, it requires two reviews
    > but what will happen if those two reviews are negative ?

It is odd.
I think though, that the intent is WG is not going to standardize things that don't
have support of a few implementors.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:44:44 -0800

> well, that refers to new work, right?

The only "delay" in this text is saying that "if you work on stuff other
than the core deliverable, it can't delay the core deliverable".  So yes,
it refers to the "new" (non-core) work, regardless of any absolute delay in
the core work.

>     > is about getting fun but there seems to be other meaning

Agreed.
I thought about alternatives like "considered" or "adopted" but neither has
quite the same connotation.  So I left this unchaged, at least for now.

> have support of a few implementors.

Yes; we need to have people looking at it.  I also left this unchanged (for
now), since if the reviews are negative that will be used as input to any
determination of consensus to adopt.

Thanks for the review Éric, and the responses Michael,

Ben

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:46 +0000

Thank you Michael and Ben,

I wanted to check whether all the points were not overlooked ;)

Happy with your reply

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 03:45
To: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Cc: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-openpgp-02-02: (with COMMENT)

    Agreed.

    Ben