Hi Spencer,
I'm helping to move this along while Stephen is on holiday... inline
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-openpgp-01-01: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This seemed to read slightly oddly:
"The Working Group will consider CFRG curves as possible Mandatory to
Implement (MTI) based on the output of the CFRG and/or Working Group
consensus in the matter."
Is "and/or" right? I'm reading that as saying that Working Group
consensus isn't required, and the output of the CFRG is sufficient, and
I'm guessing that's not what the text is intended to mean.
I think the intent was CFRG + WG consensus or WG consensus with the
and/or. If the or is removed, then CFRG is 'considered' and that's fine
because considered doesn't mean MUST. But perhaps the following would
clear up any ambiguity:
"The Working Group will consider CFRG curves as possible Mandatory to
Implement (MTI) based on the output of the CFRG and Working Group
consensus or based strictly on Working Group consensus."
Is the WG okay with this suggested change?
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp