Re: [lamps] Proposed addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter

Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> Fri, 21 December 2018 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9879B130DDB for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:55:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C9AOU4dpJpjr for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D552F12D84D for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>) id 1gaHX2-0007Ux-I1; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:55:48 +0100
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:55:48 +0100
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87bm5hxdn0.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812211039240.882@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
References: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com> <87bm5hxdn0.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/0OtRd0_zyfqjAYnTM_ngniR2xus>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Proposed addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:55:56 -0000

Hi Daniel

I am confused about the origin of the "proposed charter text" you are 
refering to and suggesting to amend:

> +7. Specify a mechanism for the cryptographic protection of e-mail
> +headers.  Most current implementations protect only the body of the
> +message, which leaves significant room for attacks against
> +otherwise-protected messages.  Cryptographic protection (both for
> +signatures and encryption) which applies to the headers in conjunction
> +with the message body are necessary to close significant security and
> +usability gaps in cryptographically-protected electronic mail.

Who drafted this charter text proposal and where has this been published 
before? I have been unable to find any traces on this mailing list. Does 
this origine from an IETF external source? Or is there some (hidden?) 
venue I am not aware of?

Thanks in advance for enlightening me on this process question.

Best,
  Bernie

--

http://ucom.ch/
Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet Technology