Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy
charter-ietf-openpgp-04
Yes
Erik Kline
Roman Danyliw
(Benjamin Kaduk)
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Duke)
- Ready for external review (01-00)
- Approve (01-03)
- Ready for external review (02-01)
- Approve (02-03)
- Ready for external review (03-00)
- Approve (03-03)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Erik Kline
Yes
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2020-11-05 for -02-02)
Sent
While I support the creation of the WG, I have some comments on the charter: 1) is it necessary to include the first four paragraphs about the history ? 2) the charter insists on 'no delay' but the previous version of the charter is dated 2015... ;-) 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 4) in"the working group will accept no I-D" s/accept/adopt/ ? 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 ?
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02-02)
Not sent
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-02)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-01)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-01)
Not sent
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-02)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-02)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02-02)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-11-05 for -02-02)
Sent
> Furthermore, the working group will accept no I-D's as working group > items unless there is a review by at least two un-interested parties of > the I-D as part of the acceptance process. Does this mean that the working group won't adopt any IDs as working group items unless it has been reviewed by two un-interested parties? If so, perhaps change accept/acceptance to adopt/adoption?