Subject: Meeting in Minneapolis?

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Oct 2003 22:54:30 -0400

Sorry I've been remiss in my duties as Chair recently.

I think we have enough topics to discuss to warrant a meeting in
Minneapolis.  I need to request a lot by noon on Tuesday, so let me
know if I'm missing anything.  Currently I think we have the following
open issues from my reading of the mailing list:

        - Should we obsolete 1991?                      #219
        - 3rd party signatures                          #220
        - IDEA, v3-v4 algo. conflict                    #221
        - non-text User IDs                             #222
        - Need to update the charter (milestones)       #29

Are there other open issues?  Are there other PGP-related topics that
people want to discuss in Minneapolis?  Let me know ASAP so I can
request a timeslot, and if you want to lead a discussion on some other
topic, please let me know (e.g.  pfs, etc.)

I'd really like to get 2440bis completed, so that's my #1 priority.

-derek

PS: I've also been asked to start using RT (https://rt.psg.com) to
track open issues.  I'm still learning the system and I don't (yet)
have a process in place to automatically enter new issues.  But we'll
see how it goes.

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:29:38 -0500

On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:54:30PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Are there other open issues?

Back-signatures from a signing subkey onto the primary key.

David

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:25:01 -0800

> I'd really like to get 2440bis completed, so that's my #1 priority.

I won't be in Minneapolis.

I stupidly thought the deadline for getting an I-D in was close of 
business Monday, and not 9am Monday, so I blew it. Sorry.

If anyone wants to see the pre-pre-release -- I'll submit this Nov 10 
-- send me email.

	Jon

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Oct 2003 12:03:32 -0500

> business Monday, and not 9am Monday, so I blew it. Sorry.

Well, I missed the deadline to request a timeslot, too..  So we wont be
meeting in MSP.  HOWEVER I think we've been making a lot of progress
on the doc here on the list so let's continue along the existing path.

-derek

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:00:08 -0800

> on the doc here on the list so let's continue along the existing path.

I think we can do that.

Ideally, IETF working groups operate *completely* on the mailing lists. 
Alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and face-to-face meetings are 
desirable or necessary.

However, this working group has been making progress for years without 
a meeting, and that, in my opinion, is not a bug, it's a feature.

	Jon

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Oct 2003 15:19:59 -0500

> > on the doc here on the list so let's continue along the existing path.

I have no objection..  We SHOULD have meetings periodically, if
for no other reason that to get more people involved or at least
knowledgable about what we're doing.

> Ideally, IETF working groups operate *completely* on the mailing
> lists. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and face-to-face
> meetings are desirable or necessary.

True.

> a meeting, and that, in my opinion, is not a bug, it's a feature.

Well, it's been making progress but still hasn't completed 2440bis.
We should make that a top priority.

-derek