Subject: Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-00.txt

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:55:43 -0500

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > On Fri 2021-01-29 11:59:31 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
    >> The -00 document is just the re-generated version of RFC4880. The only
    >> changes are the updated boilerplate and generating code differences of
    >> the xml tools over the years, as well as the document author, role and
    >> name/time of the draft.

    > Thanks for this, Paul!

    >> You can see the diff with RFC4880 using this url:
    >>
    >> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-00.txt

Looks good to me.
Some significant pagination differences later on, but the text all looks
consistent.

    > I've proposed some document editing workflow clarifications over on
    > https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/31, including
    > an ephemeral section (to be removed when we make it to an RFC) that
    > describes how to collaborate on the document.

Good.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:07:49 -0500

Looks good to me.

Good.

---

From: "Derek Atkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 16:17:56 -0500

> Some significant pagination differences later on, but the text all looks

Ditto.  The ToC doesn't include anything beyond x.y.z, and there is some
differences in text wrapping and pagination, but I don't see any content
differences.

>     > describes how to collaborate on the document.

I have no objection to this merge.

-derek

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

---

From: Vincent Breitmoser <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 13:43:51 +0100

The whitespace of the listing here looks slightly funky, not sure if it's
intended like that?:

https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-00.txt#part-21

Otherwise, I found no issues 👍️

 - V

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 12:07:52 -0500

On Fri 2021-02-05 16:17:56 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> The ToC doesn't include anything beyond x.y.z,

Does anyone have a strong preference about the level of depth of the
sub-sub-sections included in the ToC?  I think limiting to x.y.z is just
an artifact of the current toolchain we're using, though i can see how
comparing the ToC directly between this and RFC 4880 might be a
nice-to-have convenience.

I've asked Carsten on github if there's a way to adjust the depth of the
ToC from markdown:

   https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629/issues/99

I don't think we should block on this, but if Carsten (or anyone else)
points to a straightforward way to change tocDepth to 4, i wouldn't
object to applying it to the crypto-refresh draft.

       --dkg

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:44:17 -0500

> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-00.txt#part-21

Thanks for noticing that, Vincent.

This looks like an rfcdiff artifact due to how it tries to elide
pagination issues between text/plain versions.

This is in section 5.12, and you can see that section in the published
document in text-ish form (html-wrapped plaintext):

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-00#section-5.12

or in "native" html:

   https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-01.html#name-user-attribute-packet-tag-1

both of those seem to have the whitespace and the bulleted list looking
reasonable.

> Otherwise, I found no issues 👍️

great!

        --dkg

---

From: Werner Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 20:16:45 +0100

> nice-to-have convenience.

We can also fix such problems in the final I-D and don't need to care
about such editoral changes right now.

As co-editor I obviously agree to -00 and -01.

Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:24:51 -0500

>> The ToC doesn't include anything beyond x.y.z,
 […]
>    https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629/issues/99

Thanks to Carsten's suggestions, i've made this merge request to restore
RFC 4880's four levels deep table of contents:

   https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/32

This is a minor structural tweak, not a substantive change.  hopefully
it helps us avoid a distracting difference from RFC 4880.

   --dkg