Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
> 1) is it necessary to include the first four paragraphs about the
> history ?
I think so.
> 2) the charter insists on 'no delay' but the previous version of the
> charter is dated 2015... ;-)
well, that refers to new work, right?
> 3) is the word 'entertain' the right one in "OpenPGP may be entertained
> by the working group" ? For a non-English speaker, the word 'entertain'
> is about getting fun but there seems to be other meaning
yes, it's correct.
> 5) I do not know about the context, but the last paragraph looks to me
> like requesting a WGLC before adoption. Also, it requires two reviews
> but what will happen if those two reviews are negative ?
It is odd.
I think though, that the intent is WG is not going to standardize things that
don't
have support of a few implementors.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on
rails [
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp