Re: [lamps] DRAFT LAMPS Recharter Text

I have seen people voice support for the two work items listed in the draft charter text.  I have seen Max and Dmitry offer additional work items, but there has been almost no discussion of their suggestions.  Without active support, the suggested items will not be added.

Russ

> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> At IETF 99, the LAMPS WG considered several potential recharter work items.  The attached draft is a result of that discussion.  Please review and comment.
> 
> Russ
> 
> = = = = = = = =
> 
> The PKIX and S/MIME Working Groups have been closed for some time. Some
> updates have been proposed to the X.509 certificate documents produced 
> by the PKIX Working Group and the electronic mail security documents 
> produced by the S/MIME Working Group.
> 
> The LAMPS (Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME) Working 
> Group is chartered to make updates where there is a known constituency 
> interested in real deployment and there is at least one sufficiently 
> well specified approach to the update so that the working group can 
> sensibly evaluate whether to adopt a proposal.
> 
> Having completed the S/MIME 4.0 specifications and updates to support
> i18n email addresses in PKIX certificates, the LAMPS WG is now:
> 
> 1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one
>   described in RFC 6844.
> 
> 2. Specify the use of SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX and S/MIME.
> 
> RFC 6844 describes the mechanism by which CAA records relating to a
> domain are discovered.  Implementation experience has demonstrated an
> ambiguity in the current processing of CNAME and DNAME records during
> discovery.  Subsequent discussion has suggested that a different
> discovery approach would resolve limitations inherent in the current
> approach.
> 
> Unlike the previous hashing standards, the SHA-3 functions are the
> outcome of an open competition.  They have a clear design rationale and
> have received a lot of public analysis, resulting in great confidence
> that the SHA-3 family of functions are very secure.  Also, since the
> design of the SHA-3 functions use a very different construction from the
> SHA-2 functions, they offer an excellent alternative to the SHA-2 family
> of functions.  In particular, SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 offer
> security and performance benefits.
> 
> In addition, the LAMPS Working Group may investigate other updates to 
> the documents produced by the PKIX and S/MIME Working Groups, but the 
> LAMPS Working Group shall not adopt any of these potential work items 
> without rechartering.
> 
> MILESTONES
> 
> Nov 2017: Adopt a draft for rfc6844bis
> Dec 2017: Adopt a PKIX draft for SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
> Dec 2017: Adopt a S/MIME draft for SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
> Apr 2018: rfc6844bis sent to IESG for standards track publication
> Sep 2018: SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX sent to IESG for
>             standards track publication
> Sep 2018: SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for S/MIME sent to IESG for
>             standards track publication
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm