Re: [Secdispatch] IETF118 - Call for topics

[Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel,

Are there any implementations of this mechanism?
Who else showed interest in this work?
Can you provide links to the other discussions you referred to below?

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:06 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Mon 2023-10-09 16:17:11 -0400, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>
> > Please, reply to this email or directly to the chair if you have topics
> > that you would like to discuss in Prague.
>
> Hi Rifaat--
>
> If possible, i'd like to raise draft-dkg-lamps-expect-signed-mail at
> secdispatch at IETF 118 in Prague:
>
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dkg-lamps-expect-signed-mail/
>
> Readers following other mailing list discussions may recognize this as a
> (very rough) analogy to HTTP's HSTS: the goal is to have a clear signal
> that a recipient of an e-mail message can use to decide whether to
> present a warning to the user if the message is not cryptographically
> signed with an end-to-end mechanism.  (in HSTS, the browser gets a
> signal to know to refuse access to a web site if it does not use HTTPS).
>
> Aron Wussler and i started sketching this out a while ago.  i think it's
> worth seeing who else is interested, and getting feedback to make sure
> the draft makes the right choices (there are several significant
> questions in Appendix B that warrant helpful discussion:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dkg-lamps-expect-signed-mail-01.html#name-mapping-the-solution-space
> )
>
> Russ and Tim will probably hate me, but I expect that a likely dispatch
> outcome is to send this document to LAMPS (hence the name i've chosen
> for the draft), but of course i'd be fine with dispatch to any other
> relevant WG that has capacity and interest.
>
> I can post some slides about it to the datatracker if there's ~10
> minutes available in the meeting.
>
>          --dkg
>