IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 16 August 2021 20:39 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 AB0B93A0F9D for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 UW46wnAHsf0l for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 3B0663A0EFC for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2742300C1C for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:39:06 -0400 (EDT)
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 44r7BPjcckS6 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97F02300B13 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:39:01 -0400
References: <CD589623-52EE-4958-80AB-73F0CFB3A36E@vigilsec.com> <19561F5C-1EED-4D7E-81EB-210A2B47556C@vigilsec.com>
To: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <19561F5C-1EED-4D7E-81EB-210A2B47556C@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <BE91DB62-683E-4AD6-9E0D-B11CCC247E5F@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Sv0yHuXxsolLTk_XgmDC4Bj6rVk>
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: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 20:39:13 -0000

Many people have spoken in support of this document, and two have spoken against.

If it is to be adopted, an addition to the chart is needed:

   The LAMPS WG will support new definitions of objects registered in the following
   IANA registries: SMI Security for S/MIME Mail Security (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16)
   and SMI Security for PKIX (1.3.6.1.5.5.7).

What do people think about this approach?

Russ

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 5:13 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> After consultation with the Security AD for this group, a small recharter is necessary to adopt this document.
> 
> So, I amend this call for adoption as follows:
> 
> Please send your reply about whether you support adopting draft-ito-documentsigning-eku as a WG document after a recharter.  Please voice your support or raise concerns by 14 August 2021.
> 
> For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 6:13 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> We have already discussing the assignment of an object identifier for document signing, and we had a presentation at IETF 111.  Following the IETF 111 presentation, no one spoke against against adoption of this work.  This call is to see if there is rough consensus for the LAMPS WG to proceed with this work.
>> 
>> Please send your reply about whether you support adopting draft-ito-documentsigning-eku as a WG document.  Please voice your support or raise concerns by 14 August 2021.
>> 
>> For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
>> Russ
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spasm mailing list
>> Spasm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email