Re: [lamps] DRAFT LAMPS Recharter Text

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

For the current items, "active support" meant that more than one party was willing to implement the RFC produced by the group.

Russ


> On Aug 24, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Dr. Pala <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ, all,
> 
> I am sorry I was not able to send in the items right away - I think there has been some e-mails about supporting the work we are proposing, in particular adding a work item related to revocation. When you say "active support" what does that actually mean ? I think we demonstrated interest around the specific topic (there have been several messages across the different mailing lists - i.e., pkix, lamps, and saag).
> 
> However, we still need the charter and milestones for the proposed work to see if we can adopt it in this WG. I will send in the charter text and milestones soon.. sorry again for the delay, but I hope the items will be considered for the charter :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Max
> 
> 
> On 8/17/17 6:40 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> I have seen people voice support for the two work items listed in the draft charter text.  I have seen Max and Dmitry offer additional work items, but there has been almost no discussion of their suggestions.  Without active support, the suggested items will not be added.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> At IETF 99, the LAMPS WG considered several potential recharter work items.  The attached draft is a result of that discussion.  Please review and comment.
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> = = = = = = = =
>>> 
>>> The PKIX and S/MIME Working Groups have been closed for some time. Some
>>> updates have been proposed to the X.509 certificate documents produced
>>> by the PKIX Working Group and the electronic mail security documents
>>> produced by the S/MIME Working Group.
>>> 
>>> The LAMPS (Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME) Working
>>> Group is chartered to make updates where there is a known constituency
>>> interested in real deployment and there is at least one sufficiently
>>> well specified approach to the update so that the working group can
>>> sensibly evaluate whether to adopt a proposal.
>>> 
>>> Having completed the S/MIME 4.0 specifications and updates to support
>>> i18n email addresses in PKIX certificates, the LAMPS WG is now:
>>> 
>>> 1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one
>>>   described in RFC 6844.
>>> 
>>> 2. Specify the use of SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX and S/MIME.
>>> 
>>> RFC 6844 describes the mechanism by which CAA records relating to a
>>> domain are discovered.  Implementation experience has demonstrated an
>>> ambiguity in the current processing of CNAME and DNAME records during
>>> discovery.  Subsequent discussion has suggested that a different
>>> discovery approach would resolve limitations inherent in the current
>>> approach.
>>> 
>>> Unlike the previous hashing standards, the SHA-3 functions are the
>>> outcome of an open competition.  They have a clear design rationale and
>>> have received a lot of public analysis, resulting in great confidence
>>> that the SHA-3 family of functions are very secure.  Also, since the
>>> design of the SHA-3 functions use a very different construction from the
>>> SHA-2 functions, they offer an excellent alternative to the SHA-2 family
>>> of functions.  In particular, SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 offer
>>> security and performance benefits.
>>> 
>>> In addition, the LAMPS Working Group may investigate other updates to
>>> the documents produced by the PKIX and S/MIME Working Groups, but the
>>> LAMPS Working Group shall not adopt any of these potential work items
>>> without rechartering.
>>> 
>>> MILESTONES
>>> 
>>> Nov 2017: Adopt a draft for rfc6844bis
>>> Dec 2017: Adopt a PKIX draft for SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
>>> Dec 2017: Adopt a S/MIME draft for SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
>>> Apr 2018: rfc6844bis sent to IESG for standards track publication
>>> Sep 2018: SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX sent to IESG for
>>>             standards track publication
>>> Sep 2018: SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for S/MIME sent to IESG for
>>>             standards track publication
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Spasm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spasm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm