In response to Alissa and Benoit's comment, I added the sentence suggested
by Benoit towards the end of the text on scope:
These additional work items may only be added with approval from the responsible
Area Director or by re-chartering.
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Derek Atkins <derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
"Alissa Cooper" <alissa(_at_)cooperw(_dot_)in> writes:
[snip]
It would be better IMO to characterize what this "other work" might
entail or relate to. It may be obvious to the proponents but for someone
who has not been following this it sounds like the WG could take up
pretty much anything beyond the 4880bis, time and interest permitting.
While I can neither speak for the chairs or the ADs, my feeling is that
there are a handful of topics that have been proposed on the OpenPGP
mailing list that are not necessarily directly related to RFC4880bis but
have had some support to progress. My feeling is that this "open ended"
notion was to allow the chairs to accept some (or all) of thosed
proposed work items (that have already started) without an explicit
rechartering effort. But the wording is there to make sure the WG
focuses on RFC4880bis first.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp