On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 04:49:11PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
This working group has an impressive record of inaction, evidenced by
both the impending expiration of the group's only document and the
version number's being only -01. There's been no work done here since I
came into the chair position a little over a year ago.
I was also disheartened to see that SHA-1 is still baked into this draft
in a few places.
I personally don't feel that designing the next generation of RFC is
within my technical skillset -- I can make informed criticism, but
that's a little different from saying "trust me, I know what I'm doing."
But I've been waiting patiently to see drafts, and for years I've been
telling people asking about SHA-1 deprecation "wait and let the Working
Group do its job."
I am absolutely sure there is interest in an RFC which gets rid of all
SHA-1 dependencies; however, the people who are interested are not
necessarily the ones who can draft a dependency-free RFC.
I'm happy to try to contribute more in an effort to get the WG where it
needs to be. However, I think the WG as a whole needs to provide more
input and response to ideas and drafts, including useful text that can
be incorporated by the editors, so that we can move forward at a
reasonable rate.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp