[lamps] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-01-00: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01ED9124F57; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:14:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: lamps-chairs@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151802724697.4759.5326501296981118086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:14:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/5M-w0gnNkxU6HV10t9dOHxOw5ZI>
Subject: [lamps] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-01-00: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:14:07 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lamps-01-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Nice work on this one.

This is very nit-picky, but perhaps placing the explanation of each topic
immediately following the list item naming the topic would be clearer?

Like, so:

Having completed the S/MIME 4.0 specifications and updates to support
i18n email addresses in PKIX certificates, the LAMPS WG is now tackling
these topics:

1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one
   described in RFC 6844.

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

2. Specify the use of SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX and

Unlike the previous hashing standards, the SHA-3 family of functions are
the outcome of an open competition.  They have a clear design rationale
and have received a lot of public analysis, which gives great confidence
that the SHA-3 family of functions are secure.  Also, since SHA-3 uses a
very different construction from SHA-2, the SHA-3 family of functions
offers an excellent alternative.  In particular, SHAKE128/256 and
SHAKE256/512 offer security and performance benefits.