Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime

Ben Campbell <> Mon, 18 December 2017 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BED12422F for <>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:06:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L2aa7TJcRTCF for <>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33CE61205D3 for <>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBIK64HH074621 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:06:05 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Ben Campbell <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7BA02F86-7727-4D23-AA58-A7EB03F3D2F1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:06:03 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <>, DISPATCH list <>, Cullen Jennings <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:06:13 -0000

(Strictly as an individual contributor.)

I will be surprised if there are enough participants to make even a mini-WG worthwhile. While the discussion in Singapore shows a number of people interested in secure messaging in general (BTW, Yay!), far fewer were interested in participating for this particular document. I recall 4 people (other than the authors) saying they were interested in helping. 2 of those have already offered feedback, and IIRC one of them was an AD (but I could be mistaken on that part.) Once you assign (a) WG chair(s), that's not many participants left to do the work.

I see the point that a WG with S/MIME in the name may bring in some more security experts. But I’m guessing we are talking about 1 or 2, not dozens. Similar levels of review could be achieved for an AD sponsored draft by the AD asking for some targeted reviews.

But in any case, I am happy to accept whatever approach DISPATCH and the remaining ART ADs prefer. (I will of course recuse myself from that decision.)



> On Dec 12, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Mary Barnes <> wrote:
> Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.  I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review.  Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues. But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing.
> Mary.
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
> Hi,
> > As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
> > whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).
> >
> > And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items.
> While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version.
> But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)
> Regards,
> Christer
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <> wrote:
> >From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.
> Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list