[lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME
Wayne Thayer <wthayer@gmail.com> Wed, 16 May 2018 01:00 UTC
Return-Path: <wthayer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA7E12EB2C for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZoZ5J-tai1iu for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2926126DEE for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m5-v6so2955279qti.1 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TTI68kUcMMGSdxxQWnIfLbqjKDzydxtrHBEyoDipFOA=; b=DiOM/GjUYpTT37HlMdVcuBzdPXbHjkogdXf9D8CN6JbAsoZJABzP4WHTghq7Pl7T5q tJwi/OHYRBvygDywd8P3SOdl8aRa7iQFkwrw2nFQBEFVrtf5G5YyCYObwv42Kq3XojN9 0vA0HMWKwwUHc8nLvV+fl+lERdwyU+wTDnqI4X260s26d/dsC6WP9xWLMMIc1qFF6Y/R qtYyoII4zEp3SJJwdXultUYAZlLlbm5FxfnBJVhSSctZhnGIA2HwfZigR+UYgq234gue QhlveAqqTOLnce8hK6IYulVxgMYhIhWAWCfGcADqbtoldX9nBAVEwGoyYv8zxYNobSI4 2O1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TTI68kUcMMGSdxxQWnIfLbqjKDzydxtrHBEyoDipFOA=; b=kz2hKASXmlttVoal9glc3xL3SNsTTrJcP+3Mm1CHX62yUhLhWEE8K8ITCnZB6xDgXe uiWkL+0ynqfxA9cAXngwWi6SUcD5N8ud3Wsmvr7Zx/DXfjsI2HV76xBq5HPcBHF4JHzQ LlVYnhh8vEw4xL7+aZKfXbSeXj7WAFLa3L5Yfns1VsEYK9EGKVuJaip43glsC4S2uLqK Wtv2R6uju78CoNancyIcaSUxn1kO51TdIpnlsQgol77Z97OZVF1MpepvStewfaZMXHfX N0hwQ48Www+jBZL4p1uak0HnzbR2s/uBEIuNybgIWncgI4sjNBLwpP7cyUNCcOgDrLW4 9S2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdrQr7PD1gnv0Li3q67ZsX8ku3N3ywWBoVYrG1itHgiKqHnt9Lt W12wyYd7wyEGu2W7ytygsr5K42TxT7r0dZn+M6hhTQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZr17tfK9P5tP8JX709z7WILE8VjOkzyR0pbEgidaRNOlPzQxOLs/udD/LMbTthWNP5JEn7ibPwLrSqWmH4OxxA=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:adfb:: with SMTP id x56-v6mr15840140qvc.198.1526432423927; Tue, 15 May 2018 18:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Wayne Thayer <wthayer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 01:00:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPh8bk-dtfqcf35m=Jwyv7Mm2mrFXe8xgiEKfvj7_W8PB-=+_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: spasm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066e579056c483e60"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/HeaN8diM7SImt66NNFaSzbTaWaY>
Subject: [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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, 16 May 2018 01:00:28 -0000
There is a vigorous discussion about CAA and S/MIME certificates happening over on the mozilla.dev.security.policy list [1]. It has been proposed that this issue could be addressed as part of rfc6844bis, but I'm reading the LAMPS recharter as being too narrow in scope to permit this. Does this work need to be deferred to a future LAMPS recharter? - Wayne [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/NIc2Nwa9Msg/RGx4A5HBBAAJ
- [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME Wayne Thayer
- Re: [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME Eric Rescorla
- Re: [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME Ryan Sleevi
- Re: [lamps] CAA Semantics for S/MIME Tim Hollebeek