Re: More on the closing of the OpenPGP WG

[Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Derek Atkins <derek@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I sat down with Sam, Tim, and Pasi yesterday to talk about this.
> Basically, it's still possible to have a "standards track" document
> without a working group.  They still need to go through an IETF
> Last Call but the AD can sponsor the draft (instead of having a
> WG Group).  So long as the drafts are not very contentious (which
> MOST of our proposed work is), we can just continue to drafts
> as individual submissions and an AD (Tim?) could sponsor that
> once we have rough consensus on this list.
>
> This list can (and will) remain alive.  So we can continue to discuss
> Camillia, ECC, and Whirlpool on this list and then get documents
> passed through the IETF/IESG Last Call process.
>
> If it turns out that we do have some contentious work (e.g. the
> HTTP-PGP work), then we might need something more.  Note that
> we do not necessarily need a BOF in order to get a new working
> group.  It's not a requirement.  So, if we DO have work that really
> does require a WG, then it COULD be reformed.
>
> So, a summary:
>
> 1) This List will remain open and as active as we make it.
> 2) We can continue to do OpenPGP work in the IETF
> 3) We can continue to get I-Ds and Standards-track RFCs published
> 4) We can get a new group constituted if we need to, but Tim assures
>    me that based on the proposed work we probably don't need to.
>
> Please let me know how you feel about this.

I'm curious whether we can get the OpenPGP header document published
without a WG or not.  A few MUAs parses the header (Gnus, enigmail,
squirrelmail, if I understand correctly).

/Simon