Re: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-dkg-lamps-samples

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>]

On Wed 2021-04-14 17:29:11 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> Based on the advice from Roman during IETF 110, I do not think that a recharter is needed to adopt a document that contains a big pile of samples to help implementers.  The existing document is in support of work that is in the current charter, and it can be expanded if the IESG approves the re-charter text that has already been sent to them.
>
> Should the LAMPS WG adopt draft-dkg-lamps-samples as the starting point for this work?

I support adoption of these sample certificates by the WG.  I'm fine
continuing as editor if folks want it, with WG having formal change
control.  I welcome anyone else who wants to join me as editor, and I
also would not object if the WG were to select entirely different
editors.  I will contine to review and propose text and sample
certificates in any case.

I note that the document is framed specifically as positive examples --
things that we expect implementers to legitimately see in the wild, as
well as corresponding secret key material.  I expect these to be useful
in the creation of test vectors (as they already are for
draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection).

The document does *not* contain negative examples -- things that should
be broken, malformed, or potentially malicious.  I recommend that if the
WG adopts this draft, it keeps to this narrowly defined scope of
postitive examples only for the sake of simplicity and being able to
have a finite document production process.  Negative examples certainly
have an important place in engineering, but the scale and scope of all
conceivable negative examples in a problem space as complex as X.509 and
S/MIME is so unbounded that the document would be outrageously large.

(if someone was to curate a bestiary of broken X.509 certificates, that
would be great, but i don't think that should be this document)

       --dkg