[lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling
Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> Fri, 02 October 2020 12:24 UTC
Return-Path: <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
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 D28E63A0FAC for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 fqpxqes-15Q9 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c0c:15fc::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 767083A0F9F for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>) id 1kOK6m-000H9n-I4 for spasm@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 14:24:20 +0200
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 14:24:19 +0200
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch
To: IETF LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2010021410290.55994@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Li3zM7opvte2XAzSnqe7n-GMVrw>
Subject: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 12:24:24 -0000
Below a summary of the issue on 'Bcc Handling'. If anybody wishes to discuss this topic further or does not agree with the conclusion, please speek up within the next 10 days! At the bottom of this email there are some open questions that need answers. cheers, Bernie Text from slide: - Encrypted Messages with Bcc need to be split: 1) The same Message to all To and Cc recipients, without Bcc HF 2) Message(s) to Bcc recipient(s) vary among implementations a) One Message per Bcc recipient Bcc HF contains recipient address the message is sent to b) The same Message for all Bcc recipients Bcc HF with an indication, e.g. "Undisclosed recipients" c) The same Message for all Bcc recipients without Bcc HF (same as same as 1) - No specification on this found in S/MIME - 2a is most privacy-preserving, but may result in many Messages - 2b and 2c are easier/more efficient to handle, but leak privacy information via encryption keys and certs Conclusion at IETF-108 (as I understood): - 2a is the way forward - 2a has been claimed to be already part of the S/MIME standards Open questions: - Where (RFC & Section) is it standardized that 2a is to be used, so that we could refer to? - What is the standardization state of 2b and 2c that appear to be implemented? forbidden, discouraged, deprecated, ... ?
- [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling Bernie Hoeneisen
- Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling Alexey Melnikov