Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg(_at_)fifthhorseman(_dot_)net> wrote:
> On Wed 2020-11-04 12:24:20 -0800, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:36:25AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
>>> - Revise RFC4880. The intent is to start from the current rfc4880bis
draft.
>>
>> I'm happy to put that change in, as it reflects what I understand to be
the
>> universal or near-universal sentiment.
> To be clear, i think the much of the work in the current rfc4880bis
> draft does address the outstanding chartered items, has widespread
> adoption and documented WG consensus, or is part of straightforward
> editorial cleanup. There are other parts of the current rfc4880bis that
> do not address chartered items, are not widely deployed, or have not
> gained consensus.
It seems to me that we need to:
1) adopt a document which is rfc4880-equivalent.
2) identify the pieces which have "widespread adoption" and/or are "editorial
cleanup", so that we can clearly have documented WG consensus.
3) publish a document.
I even wonder if that document might be Internet Standard, if the items
are widely deployed.
(Note that also involve cutting the pieces in 4880 that were never deployed)
4) re-cycle on the parts which did make the above cut.
> For the former set, we will absolutely start from the text in the
> current rfc4880bis. For the parts that are in the latter set, we should
> reserve any already-documented codepoints in 4880bis, and encourage
> advocates who care to advance individual drafts that flesh them out
> further. For what it's worth, this latter set includes things that i
> have advocated for, so i'll be following this approach myself.
I don't think we can start from the document which has been reposted because
they didn't have a WG to get consensus from. We have to start from rfc4880.
Adding this bis pieces in a clear -01/-02 shouldn't take that long.
AT MOST, one IETF meeting cycle, less if we employ some virtual interims.
> If the reformed WG can publish an actual rfc4880bis, as chartered and
> with consensus and multiple implementations, then we should talk about
> rechartering so we can adopt those individual drafts as WG items.
I agree.
--
] 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 [
--
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