IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-ito-documentsigning-eku

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Wed, 28 July 2021 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.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 2C4E03A1521 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
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 RtFCE4rZqa8z for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (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 260E13A1514 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:aa15:4101:2a80:cc8a:6ce0:76e7:c1a7] ([IPv6:2a02:aa15:4101:2a80:cc8a:6ce0:76e7:c1a7]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 16SFS8OQ073049 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:28:08 +0200
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1627486090; bh=ClLnBvNkoENCkDe+dUk6uojcCkhufitsMbRRJY9QBrg=; h=To:Cc:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bA85ItuusC+Zhoy/Id3LZMJGcvN16hA0kned7iYfRhRrrk+5I5xsZTvb6NvFU9vfB vDpK0ykd0SuAyvZF8ynnnwE+dMMp6dl4UY0XdYV6NQt843KM4fTNmWJ+bPlAv+fV6B fKWOHmu0JA/l60ZtmpYVvips/G1/cuxdrI8deXR4=
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Tomofumi Okubo <tomofumi.okubo@digicert.com>
References: <CD589623-52EE-4958-80AB-73F0CFB3A36E@vigilsec.com> <CAErg=HF_hcXO=9=KJh5EBEov4ybS_8g4xF=cANL9+83UvP0zvQ@mail.gmail.com> <adf86f46-093f-756f-8292-9b5e088f4344@lear.ch> <CAErg=HEUFV2F8R8g8e6yCDKz_e6RebNyB5Zb2Lvgn4oc3BtE-w@mail.gmail.com> <CO6PR14MB4468A7A5EB138542CEBA5D9CEAE99@CO6PR14MB4468.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HH4aDgju=8C7Neq_4H19EX8S2inNd9fMAMYH3h95S48Rg@mail.gmail.com> <CO6PR14MB44688BC4188063BCA54E80C4EAE99@CO6PR14MB4468.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <CAErg=HGDA+16N4xhgMvuQz25DqD+_nkiFC+OuAJMkFzYYqFV0w@mail.gmail.com> <2550c1c3-1400-b380-c9ad-dad59286feee@lear.ch> <CAErg=HGnKMNNyaf-=w+DmqfXg7XYbKD2Ah-WUxf96xNN5Ecikg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Message-ID: <58460056-9cb9-d8a6-6c7f-b1b8bee860a4@lear.ch>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:28:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAErg=HGnKMNNyaf-=w+DmqfXg7XYbKD2Ah-WUxf96xNN5Ecikg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5sgWtJKl7xiWxv9KSNuhmBIttYWzjCbsV"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Oif59mSo0VQ7YV6_9F22s4h4wIY>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-ito-documentsigning-eku
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:28:22 -0000

Hi Ryan,

I want to just address one point:

> I hope my previous emails sufficiently explained why this document 
> should not be considered as meeting the bar "sufficiently well 
> specified approach", and how the definition of "real deployment" in 
> the context of a multi-stakeholder ecosystem like PKI (CAs, relying 
> parties, users) is equally questionable.

IMHO The issue at this stage is not whether the document at this point 
is well specified, but whether it *can* be well well specified by WG 
last call.  To reiterate, I agree with you that when you use and when 
you don't use this approach could be better specified, but that can 
happen as the normal part of draft development.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email