IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 54B42130EC1 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:34:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=G0uxkpwF; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=AzbAga+t
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 X6JeVmEyHMCK for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9170C130EBE for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 32167 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2018 19:34:36 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=7da3.5c1beecc.k1812; bh=Xpn5GIuqVWzTn8xsNf6Sns+sNqdkgFYcnfxAYKOa/HE=; b=G0uxkpwFbe/ffR1AV1rw5HgWV4QsQzTy/UnFn2bnXefYJw3bOxx26JpdjNvZH0NhQnDvu74JkWR1+CuVQ6lgoGRHTjVKFhdGNKzkaifUk3yzHOta+nV2r78JfH59VYlVsMynkltuR5RtLXteRu60FDA3UhwxmRod1ws+Xe/Ak6+/2uWciCfRHswDJOQm4YswFAbAd8vTHPSJISpOnWb3NdVOGm0JF2Ru/4RlxYcHIxczmFeO5qwRG9PsDglHOxlq
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=7da3.5c1beecc.k1812; bh=Xpn5GIuqVWzTn8xsNf6Sns+sNqdkgFYcnfxAYKOa/HE=; b=AzbAga+tSYSCLduoP7xAdyGOiGA7fmsex9aFZGS6L1KfSTKY2Sqp4bbVVllPzSu6UhY4+i4j4w2bBk8TcGws1JSpFstBWNJeujgVHHUdijpNxOSNmuZQG4NpTnU8FoWiyO//PvbKTDZ1tsrkkx9D8pjx5cn65p6mevMaLvRV+e0gSosl08sxaLO6P/76LW++U40hM6LAMkHC6XYkZTGQWIIJ4RLBcBXxmc79eiexoU5YWIL66OLbCB/v6Or8F69e
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 20 Dec 2018 19:34:35 -0000
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:34:35 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1812201434001.45001@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: spasm@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <875zvoxed7.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com> <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com> <87bm5hxdn0.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <pvf3pu$ms1$1@gal.iecc.com> <875zvoxed7.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/21pR7toxoS-ITCKeqVOD43X_NLc>
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: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:34:42 -0000

>> Seems reasonable but you might want to be sure you're clear why this
>> is different from DKIM, which does after all sign headers now.
>
> Do you want to propose a change to the text?  it seems pretty clear to
> me that "for both signatures and encryption" puts it out of the realm of
> what's solvable by DKIM, but i welcome amendments.

No, so long as people are aware that DKIM has already addressed one part 
of this swamp, we're OK.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email