Skip to main content

Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy
charter-ietf-openpgp-04

Yes

(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Stephen Farrell)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2015-06-08 for -01-00) Unknown
This is probably just a drafting issue, but this bit of the charter seems too open-ended:

"- Other work may be entertained by the working group as long as it does 
not interfere with the completion of the RFC4880 revision. As the revision 
of RFC4880 is the primary goal of the working group, other work may be 
undertaken, so long as:

1. Will not unduly delay the closure of the working group after the 
revision is finished (unless the working group is rechartered).

2. as widespread support in the working group."

It would be better IMO to characterize what this "other work" might entail or relate to. It may be obvious to the proponents but for someone who has not been following this it sounds like the WG could take up pretty much anything beyond the 4880bis, time and interest permitting.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2015-06-09 for -01-00) Unknown
I concur with Alissa's comment about "other work".  Is it possible to put more scope around the "other work" than "The wg wants to do it and it doesn't get in the way"?

Item 2. under "other work" appears to have some missing words. Should that say "The work has widespread support..."?
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01-01) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-06-07 for -01-00) Unknown
Just a question for Stephen:  did you check with the Secretariat that resurrecting a closed WG this way won't cause tools problems?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-06-11 for -01-01) Unknown
Good luck with such an open charter:
- Other work related to OpenPGP may be entertained by the working group as long
as it does not interfere with the completion of the RFC4880 revision. As the revision 
of RFC4880 is the primary goal of the working group, other work may be 
undertaken, so long as:
1. The work will not unduly delay the closure of the working group after the 
revision is finished (unless the working group is rechartered).
2. The work has widespread support in the working group.

This will lead to discussions: 
"sure, there will not be much delay, we'll be fast!", 
"sure, there is widespread support!" (look at the acknowlegment section :-) )

In OPS, we summarized this as:
Additional work items may only be added with approval
from the responsible Area Director or by re-chartering.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-01) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-01) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-01) Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-01) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-06-10 for -01-01) Unknown
This seemed to read slightly oddly:

"The Working Group will consider CFRG curves as possible Mandatory to 
Implement (MTI) based on the output of the CFRG and/or Working Group 
consensus in the matter."

Is "and/or" right? I'm reading that as saying that Working Group consensus isn't required, and the output of the CFRG is sufficient, and I'm guessing that's not what the text is intended to mean.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-01) Unknown