IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 10 November 2021 22:06 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 2D7883A141F for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:06:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 5Gd4J5loKLeJ for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:06:48 -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 E51BB3A141E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 14:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8337300BCA for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:06:49 -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 FM3FbeQIoOx4 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:06:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.159] (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EC73300B38 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:06:48 -0500 (EST)
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: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:06:45 -0500
References: <CD589623-52EE-4958-80AB-73F0CFB3A36E@vigilsec.com>
To: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD589623-52EE-4958-80AB-73F0CFB3A36E@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <1739DC01-D237-4080-99F2-1B82A4571C49@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Wdcm5QUbnLUo4N1nr14qzK9w850>
Subject: [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, 10 Nov 2021 22:06:52 -0000

We have already discussing the assignment of an object identifier for document signing.  An earlier call for document adoption lead to a lot of comments.  We had a presentation at IETF 112, and the authors reported that they have clarified what is meant by document signing, added a section for how to use the public key and certificate, addressed concerns about the extended key usage as a policy identifier, and expanded the security considerations.  Following the IETF 112 presentation, no one spoke against against adoption of this document.  This call is to see if there is rough consensus for the LAMPS WG to proceed with adoption of the revised document.

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 30 November 2021.

For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email