Vincent,
On Wed, September 2, 2020 5:38 pm, Vincent Breitmoser wrote:
Hi Derek,
Small pedantic nit -- there is no WG, so technically there is no WG
consensus to be had.
I have said it before, and will say again: This is a document published
under
the ietf- namespace, it speaks with the authority of the working group.
"There
is no WG, hence nothing matters and everything goes" is simply not a valid
argument.
You can say it until you are blue in the face, but there is no working
group with the authority to publish a document. There is no active
charter. There is no current WG Chair. All we have is this list of the
remnants of the WG.
Now, if I were AD and asked to publish this document, I would absolutely
go look at this list archive to try to determine if there was consensus on
the mailing list for the document, but that does not a working-group make.
I'll also point out that there is no requirement for a standards-track
document to come out of a working group; an AD can sponsor it. And
indeed, that would be my expectation for 4880bis. However, technically,
Werner has the right to do as he pleases because, as I've said before,
there is no working group. Also, technically, anyone else could take up
the reigns and create an alternative 4880bis.
For the record, a relevant discussion about the UserID requirement on
keys went
on over at https://dev.gnupg.org/T4393 on the GnuPG issue tracker. It's
a pretty
informative read overall about the state of the community.
If you want to talk about working group consensus, THAT is definitely NOT
a place where WG Consensus can or should happen. That is the area for one
specific OpenPGP implementation; so once GnuPG had some consensus on the
matter, by your own admission that should have been brought here for open
discussion among the remnants of the OpenPGP Working Group. You can't
have it both ways.
IMHO, that conversation should have been had on this list prior to the
draft being updated.
On Wed, September 2, 2020 5:53 pm, Paul Wouters wrote:
It was my understanding that there was some thought about re-opening it
to get the bis document out. But that WG chairs were needed. One issue
on re-opening would be how to handle the document author being one main
implementation author writing things that some felt did not have WG
consensus.
That is why I was asking this. I'd like to know if this an update from
Werner or an update from a consensus on this list - WG or no WG at the
moment.
My understanding is that by definition it is an individual submission by
Werner which is *supposed* to have general consensus of the members of
this list. But "legally" there is no requirement that there be list
consensus at this point because there is no active working group so,
technically, it's an individual submission that would be AD-sponsored.
Having said that, I would *hope* that there were at least rough consensus
from this list before changes were made, but I know that hasn't happened
for all changes.
As for re-opening the WG (yet again), I'll just remind you that it was
closed specifically because it did NOT make progress on 4880bis, so I
don't know how re-opening it would change the velocity of the work. The
only changes I can see happening would be having a chair that can declare
(rough) consensus on a topic and manage the changes asked from the Editor
(whether that continues to be Werner or changes to someone else), and it
would also require all consensus-building to happen on this list (or the
official WG list), and not on the list of a particular implementation.
Thanks,
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp