[upofadown]

It is very hard to prevent a proposal from becoming a RFC. You have to generate ongoing opposition for longer than the supporters. FWIW, here is the LibrePGP proposal:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koch-librepgp/

Observing the OpenPGP schism mess I think I have gained some insight as to why some RFCs become so bloated. For example it has been recently pointed out that there are 60 RFCs for TLS (with 31 drafts in progress)[1]. The RFC process seems to be more optimal during the design phase. Once we have an established standard there should to be some way to force those that propose changes/extensions to provide appropriately strong justifications for those changes/extensions. Right now it is a popularity contest and there will always be more people out there in favour of changes/extensions than those willing to endlessly fight against those changes/extensions. Because cryptography is so specialized and obscure, the users tend to get left out of the discussion.

[1] https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf

[throw0101a]

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koch-librepgp/

"Intended Status: Informational"

And anyone can put forward a draft. Here's one for "IPv8" with increased security where "manageable element in an IPv8 network is authorised via OAuth2 JWT tokens"

* https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html

[ekr____]

> It is very hard to prevent a proposal from becoming a RFC. You have to generate ongoing opposition for longer than the supporters.

I don't think this is really true. A huge fraction of proposed documents just go nowhere, and it's really quite common to see a new proposal get presented and be shot down by one or two people (Source: I've been one of the people doing the shooting down on more than one occasion)