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

[Bernie Hoeneisen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel

Thanks for your input. Your latest proposal (DKG-2) works for me. As you
say, it even fits better to the existing charter text and probably
allays the concerns raised by John and Stephen about explit references to
(legacy) RFCs.

Hernani's small amendment (HM-1) looks even better.

I suggest to go forward with the wording HM-1, though DKG-2 is also a
viable option for me.

cheers,
   Bernie

--

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

* * *

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Hernâni Marques (p≡p project) wrote:

> --- BEGIN HM-1 ---
>
> 7. Update the specification for the cryptographic protection of email
> headers -- both for signatures and encryption -- to improve the
> implementation situation with respect to privacy, security, usability
> and interoperability in cryptographically-protected electronic mail.
> Most current implementations of cryptographically-protected electronic
> mail protect only the body of the message, which leaves significant room
> for attacks against otherwise-protected messages.
>
> --- END HM-1 ---


* * *

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> --- BEGIN DKG-2 ---
>
> 7. Update the specification for the cryptographic protection of e-mail
> headers - both for signatures and encryption - to improve the
> implementation situation with respect to privacy, security and usability
> in cryptographically-protected electronic mail.  Most current
> implementations of cryptographically-protected electronic mail protect
> only the body of the message, which leaves significant room for attacks
> against otherwise-protected messages.
>
> --- END DKG-2 ---