IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Thu, 03 January 2019 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 0A2531312B0 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:50:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8KY0tv1aR6oH for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:116::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C00741312AE for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A253F99B; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 14:50:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1FAAB2039A; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 14:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7E97D758-BC5A-4911-AC15-958D25D1A88F@akamai.com>
References: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com> <87bm5hxdn0.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <1194C123-1234-4B86-8EC1-26CE577CAFDA@vigilsec.com> <7E97D758-BC5A-4911-AC15-958D25D1A88F@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 14:39:16 -0500
Message-ID: <87sgy9o7iz.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/J3xFpPsQ_6FuI66Vy24jTzTJ19s>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Draft addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 19:50:29 -0000

On Thu 2019-01-03 19:32:47 +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Minor nit, I found one sentence a bit confusing.  Does this express the intent?
> 	Cryptographic protection, both signatures and encryption, applied to the headers in conjunction ...
>
> Or is "both" better as "such as" ?

I'm fine with either (or with "including"), but i prefer to say "both"
because i want to stress that these are the two forms of cryptographic
protection of e-mail messages that we're talking about (are there
others?), and that we want to ensure that we actually do handle them
both.

        --dkg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email