Re: secsh wg status

[Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:
>>> The secsh wg has been declared as "concluded" [...]
>> If there're enough folks who want to do enough good work to justify
>> the IETF WG being reformed, [...]
>
> Personally, and as an implementer, I see no current need for a WG
> (especially given the general direction I see IETF going), but it does
> sound good to me to keep the mailing list alive.  I do want to talk ssh
> implementations occasionally, albeit no more than occasionally.
>

Well, not having RFCs match what the latest versions of
implementations are doing does not sound good. I agree that receiving
too many mails from a WG is not desirable. If we could find the right
balance, I think that a WG is useful.