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

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Daniel Kahn Gillmor  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>--- a/lamps-charter.txt
>+++ b/lamps-charter.txt
>@@ -58,6 +58,14 @@ certificate for a trust anchor, which is often called a Root
> Certification Authority (CA) certificate, to identify the next
> public key that will be used by the trust anchor.
> 
>+7. Specify a mechanism for the cryptographic protection of e-mail
>+headers.  Most current implementations protect only the body of the
>+message, which leaves significant room for attacks against
>+otherwise-protected messages.  Cryptographic protection (both for
>+signatures and encryption) which applies to the headers in conjunction
>+with the message body are necessary to close significant security and
>+usability gaps in cryptographically-protected electronic mail.
>+
> In addition, the LAMPS WG may investigate other updates to documents
> produced by the PKIX and S/MIME WGs, but the LAMPS WG shall not adopt
> any of these potential work items without rechartering.
>
>happy to hear any concerns or suggestions for improvement!

Seems reasonable but you might want to be sure you're clear why this
is different from DKIM, which does after all sign headers now.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly