Subject: [openpgp] Alissa Cooper's Yes on charter-ietf-openpgp-01-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:24:38 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-openpgp-01-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-openpgp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:26:33 -0400

Hi,

"Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]> writes:

[snip]
> pretty much anything beyond the 4880bis, time and interest permitting.

While I can neither speak for the chairs or the ADs, my feeling is that
there are a handful of topics that have been proposed on the OpenPGP
mailing list that are not necessarily directly related to RFC4880bis but
have had some support to progress.  My feeling is that this "open ended"
notion was to allow the chairs to accept some (or all) of thosed
proposed work items (that have already started) without an explicit
rechartering effort.  But the wording is there to make sure the WG
focuses on RFC4880bis first.

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

---

From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:40:28 -0700

Greetings,

	Thank's Derek - you saved me the response.  That's exactly the intent.  
It gives the chairs some latitude to accept some of the other work so 
long as it doesn't impinge on the 4880bis activity.

	Christopher

On 9 Jun 2015, at 6:26, Derek Atkins wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp

-- 
李柯睿
Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio
Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf
keybase: https://keybase.io/liljenstolpe

---

From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:44:12 -0700

On 9 Jun 2015, at 16:18, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Is there any possible way you could characterize it so it’s not 
> entirely open-ended? E.g., “Other work _related to OpenPGP_” or 
> some such would suffice. Right now it’s written as if the WG could 
> take up basket weaving and that would be in scope. I know that is not 
> the intent but would rather not set the precedent for having ambiguous 
> charter language.

We could - Stephen, do you think we would need to restart the process 
for that?

	Christopher

>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> 	Thank's Derek - you saved me the response.  That's exactly the 
>> intent.  It gives the chairs some latitude to accept some of the 
>> other work so long as it doesn't impinge on the 4880bis activity.
>>
>> 	Christopher
>>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:36:20 +0100

On 10/06/15 06:44, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>> entirely open-ended? E.g., “Other work _related to OpenPGP_” or some
>> such would suffice. Right now it’s written as if the WG could take up
>> basket weaving and that would be in scope. I know that is not the
>> intent but would rather not set the precedent for having ambiguous
>> charter language.
> 

I'll add that shortly. Doing so will have no impact on timing.

And I'll check out Ben's comment then too.

S.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:18:14 -0700

Is there any possible way you could characterize it so it’s not entirely open-ended? E.g., “Other work _related to OpenPGP_” or some such would suffice. Right now it’s written as if the WG could take up basket weaving and that would be in scope. I know that is not the intent but would rather not set the precedent for having ambiguous charter language.

Thanks,
Alissa

On Jun 9, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> 	Thank's Derek - you saved me the response.  That's exactly the intent.  It gives the chairs some latitude to accept some of the other work so long as it doesn't impinge on the 4880bis activity.
> 
> 	Christopher
>

---

From: "Christopher LILJENSTOLPE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:20:44 -0700

Greetings,

	Can I remind folks to sign up for the openpgp mailing list so that they 
can see all of the responses to mails they are sending?

	Thx
	Christopher

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:24:08 -0400

In response to Alissa and Benoit's comment, I added the sentence suggested
by Benoit towards the end of the text on scope:

These additional work items may only be added with approval from the responsible
Area Director or by re-chartering.

Best regards,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:21:08 +0100

> These additional work items may only be added with approval from the
> responsible Area Director or by re-chartering.

That satisfies my concern with it; thanks.

Barry