[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ECC in OpenPGP ready to be submitted to IETF
David Crick wrote:
... or so it seems.
I saw the subject and my initial thought was "whoa, seems
a bit hasty!"
Believe me, I'm all in favour of getting ECC into OpenPGP
ASAP, but the above was my initial reaction.
I think there is rough consensus (or the lack of strong disagreement, if
you prefer) on the scope of the draft, how it fits into RFC 4880, and
expectations about interoperability arising from the use of ECC keys.
If you put it that way, then I suppose it could be "ready."
I do kind of feel discussions tailed off once we'd run out of
stream - or at least, once all the arguments (er, viewpoints ;))
had been voiced _ad nauseam_.
I plan to summit the document in a few days as an OpenPGP WG item to IETF.
I take it there's still "scope" for revision/refinement after that?
(I seem to recall 2440bis took an awful long time to go round
this bit, if it's that stage you're referring to.)
I singled you out so far because of volume of comments originating from
you and the degree to which they are constructive to the progress of the
I updated http://brainhub.googlepages.com/pgp , I hope I haven't overlooked
I diff'ed ietf-00 with your pre-9 and didn't see anything major...
| The author would like to acknowledge the help of many individuals
| who kindly voiced their opinions on IETF OpenPGP Working Group
| mailing list and, in particular the help of David Crick. [to be
I hope this is merely an accolade for "loudest objector"!! and
I do hope that "[to be continued]" signifies the adding of other
people in due course.
There are many other people who have voiced their valuable opinions, and
I can expect there will be others who come later. I will definitely add
more people as the document progresses, including individuals who
already posted their comments.
Yes, you briefly mentioned this work 3 weeks back. I suppose this work
can continue once the document is an IETF draft. I would appreciate if
you at least summarize the changes you seek.
I've still on my "to do" list the "clarity/brevity/structure" polishing
that I said I felt could still be achieved. If I manage to get around
to having a stab at that, I think I'd feel more comfortable/justified
in having my name mentioned! But thank you for the gesture.
Derek Atkins mentioned to me that once the document is an IETF draft,
more people will see it and may provide additional feedback. It seems
wise to me to get all the technical feedback first and only then
transition to editorial changes. Plus, it is interesting to see how the
issue of closed WG will play out during submission.