Re: [lamps] Logo carrying certificate profile for email` draft

[Wei Chuang <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I chatted with the author of a related document to see if the independent
stream is appropriate as the disposition of both documents should be
similar.  He actually talked with Alexey Melnikov about a separate working
group so perhaps the BIMI certificate draft can go there, otherwise the
independent stream is fine.  In either case I withdraw consideration of
draft-chuang-bimi-certificate
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/> for the
LAMPS recharter.

-Wei


On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:00 AM Wei Chuang <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm fine with that.  I was checking with the author of the other likely
> IETF document (BIMI assertion records) whether he intended his document to
> be standards track to make sure that's aligned (likely it should be).
>
> -Wei
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:55 AM Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Wei:
>>
>> I think that an Independent stream document is sufficient to get the code
>> point assignments.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>> On May 8, 2018, at 3:02 AM, Wei Chuang <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've posted a draft
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/
>> regarding a logo carrying certificate for authenticated email using domain
>> based methods (DKIM and SPF).  In particular this draft calls for a new
>> Extended Key Usage for these certificates to help distinguish this usage
>> from other profiles such as S/MIME.  Can this draft be considered for the
>> LAMPS rechartering?  This work is being done by a Brand Indicator for
>> Message Identification (BIMI) working group.  An early version of the
>> overall protocol can be seen at
>> https://authindicators.github.io/rfc-brand-indicators-for-message-identification/
>> though that version doesn't include changes that include X.509
>> certificates.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -Wei
>>
>>
>>