ietf-openpgp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More on the closing of the OpenPGP WG

2008-03-10 14:52:03

Derek Atkins wrote:
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.


That sounds fine to me. Is the only reason for a WG that we have to have an open forum if there is contention?


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 vote yes, let's go informal on this list.

iang