Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
> The draft charter is at [1].
> Comments and discussion of that are more than welcome.
Thank you.
> From my POV, I'm happy to try help out to get a fairly
> minimal bit of progress progressed (as an RFC) - if we can
> usefully succeed in that (which isn't a given).
> FWIW, I do think starting with a very modest goal is
> likely a good plan for now. A bit of success (in terms
> of an RFC that is implemented, deployed and more up to
> date) is already not that easy, but success does
> breed success so if we got that done, then extending
> the charter based on success is not so hard.
I'm not opposed to any of the work described. It's all good.
Asynchronously to it, under the auspices of:
} 1. The work will not unduly delay the closure of the working group after
} the revision is finished (unless the working group is rechartered).
It seems that the key distributions servers suffer from a variety of
ailments. DDOS attacks, and other privacy issues.
We also have draft-koch-openpgp-webkey-service in the DT,
which sure sounds like webfinger/rfc7033, yet isn't.
I think that there is some spec somewhere (maybe PHB's MMM) about asking for
keys via MIME.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT
consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp