IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 12 January 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 3A6EE124BAA for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:43:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 CqdLQ6ivd626 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5982212426E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 08:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCAA300A81 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:25:12 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id NN-4skgYknDA for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:25:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-108-45-137-105.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.137.105]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 932B730017E; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:25:10 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <875zuvc4zm.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:43:27 -0500
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82ADF5CE-DEE4-4BEB-908E-70D8EB5644FA@vigilsec.com>
References: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com> <87bm5hxdn0.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <1194C123-1234-4B86-8EC1-26CE577CAFDA@vigilsec.com> <BB06AD4F-5F6F-4986-9ADC-04B44E34D0DE@vigilsec.com> <87imyvcb3m.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <7DC69A08-3A4E-4D57-B490-179B8E4A411E@vigilsec.com> <0319e3b2-81b7-13af-df9e-436a15ee1074@pep-project.org> <875zuvc4zm.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/LXZc1c_5_9NL_xMJeNxptgv6v0w>
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: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:43:32 -0000


> On Jan 11, 2019, at 3:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> 
> On Fri 2019-01-11 20:39:46 +0100, Hernâni Marques (p≡p project) wrote:
>> --- BEGIN HM-1 ---
>> 
>> 7. 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.
>> 
>> --- END HM-1 ---
> 
> I'm fine with this text too.  Does anyone have an objection to HM-1?
> can we move forward with working on the actual draft? :)

The next step is IESG approval of the revised charter.

We have an individual draft, and we can continue to work on that, including discussing issues on this list, while the IESG does the re-charter process.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email