[lamps] Proposed LAMPS Recharter

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Many of the work items in the current charter have reached the RFC Editor queue.  I believe that we can safely drop those topics.  That leaves three, including the CMP profile work that has already been discussed on the list.

We do not have an active document for the short-lived X.509 certificates work item that was directed to us by the SECDISPATCH process.

Please review.  Is this ready to be sent to the IESG for approval?

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.

The LAMPS WG is now tackling these topics:

1. Specify the use of short-lived X.509 certificates for which no
revocation information is made available by the Certification Authority.
Short-lived certificates have a lifespan that is shorter than the time
needed to detect, report, and distribute revocation information.  As a
result, revoking short-lived certificates is unnecessary and pointless.

2. 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.

3. The Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) is specified in RFC 4210,
and it offers a vast range of certificate management options.  CMP is
currently being used in many different industrial environments, but it
needs to be tailored to the specific needs of some environments.  The
LAMPS WG will develop a "lightweight" profile of CMP to more efficiently
support of these environments and better facilitate interoperable
implementation, while preserving cryptographic algorithm agility.

In addition, the LAMPS WG may investigate other updates to documents
produced by the PKIX and S/MIME WG. The LAMPS WG may produce
clarifications where needed, but the LAMPS WG shall not adopt
anything beyond clarifications without rechartering.