Re: [lamps] Draft LAMPS Recharter

Daniel Van Geest <> Mon, 04 June 2018 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC70126F31 for <>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1pC0F_oStnK for <>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1C312DFB0 for <>; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2018 16:08:12 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1466.3; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:07:52 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::d7:9d13:5f34:537a]) by ([fe80::d7:9d13:5f34:537a%6]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:07:52 -0400
From: Daniel Van Geest <>
To: Russ Housley <>, LAMPS <>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Draft LAMPS Recharter
Thread-Index: AQHT4iO3uwvg8Cvq7E6irBle105/3aRQ3K8A
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 16:07:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0C10B324C0A45E997D117DAAEA95D9Aisaracom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Draft LAMPS Recharter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 16:08:18 -0000

Hi WG,

We noticed that draft-truskovsky-lamps-pq-hybrid-x509 was put up for consideration as a potential topic for LAMPS recharter, but hasn't been included in the recharter text.  It was favorably received in London and there were good points raised, especially regarding how to use these extensions in interactive protocols such as TLS.  If there is support for continuing with the draft, we plan on updating it with ideas we've been considering to optimize the extensions' usage in interactive protocols.

There was also support for the draft in the responses to the call for potential recharter topics on the WG mailing list, so I've included some potential charter text here in case the group would like to progress further with it:

Specify a set of certificate extensions that are used to embed an alternative public key and/or signature within a certificate, certificate signing request or certificate revocation list.  These extensions allow a public key infrastructure to incrementally migrate to a new public key signature algorithm without needing to support parallel certificate chains, while maintaining backwards compatibility with systems using the existing algorithms.

As Panos mentioned, this work is agnostic of NIST PQ algorithms, and it is important to be ready to start migrating when the algorithms are ready, which is why we're suggesting it be added at this time.  These extensions will make the migration easier, especially for large organizations with complicated PKIs.

As Erik Andersen mentioned, the extensions are currently working their way through X.509.  Proposing this draft to LAMPS is not intended to duplicate that work, but it should make feedback to ITU-T easier (feedback such at the TLS discussion in London).  Additionally, for these extensions to be used in other protocols like TLS or CMS, other (we believe small) extensions to those protocols may be needed, so having it eventually published as an RFC via LAMPS would give other WGs an IETF document as a starting point for their own extensions.


On 2018-05-02, 4:41 PM, "Spasm on behalf of Russ Housley" <<> on behalf of<>> wrote:

Based on the discussion in London and the "Potential Topics for LAMPS Recharter" mail thread.  We propose the attached charter text.  Please review and comment.

Russ & Tim

= = = = = = = = =

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.

The LAMPS WG is now tackling these topics:

1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one
described in RFC 6844.  Implementation experience has demonstrated an
ambiguity in the handling of CNAME and DNAME records during discovery
in RFC 6844, and subsequent discussion has suggested that a different
discovery approach would resolve limitations inherent in that approach.

2. Specify the use of SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX and S/MIME.
Unlike the previous hashing standards, the SHA-3 family of functions are
the outcome of an open competition.  They have a clear design rationale
and have received a lot of public analysis, giving great confidence that
the SHA-3 family of functions are secure.  Also, since SHA-3 uses a very
different construction from SHA-2, the SHA-3 family of functions offers
an excellent alternative.  In particular, SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
offer security and performance benefits.

3. Specify the use of short-lived X.509 certificates for which no
revocation information is made available by the Certification Authority.
Short-lived certificates have a lifespan that is shorter than the time
needed to detect, report, and distribute revocation information, as a
result revoking them pointless.

4. Specify the use of a pre-shared key (PSK) along with other key
management techniques with supported by the Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) as a near-term mechanism to protect present day
communication from the future invention of a large-scale quantum
computer.  The invention of a such a quantum computer would pose a
serious challenge for the key management algorithms that are widely
deployed, especially the key transport and key agreement algorithms
used today with the CMS to protect S/MIME messages.

5. Specify the use of hash-based signatures with the Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS).  A hash-based signature uses small private and
public keys, and it has low computational cost; however, the signature
values are quite large.  For this reason they will probably not be used
for signing X.509 certificates or S/MIME messages, but they are secure
even if a large-scale quantum computer is invented.  These properties
make hash-based signatures useful in some environments, such a the
distribution of software updates.

6. Specifies a certificate extension that is carried in a self-signed
certificate for a trust anchor, which is often called a Root
Certification Authority (CA) certificate, to identify the next
public key that will be used by the trust anchor.

In addition, the LAMPS WG may investigate other updates to documents
produced by the PKIX and S/MIME WGs, but the LAMPS WG shall not adopt
any of these potential work items without rechartering.


Mar 2018: Adopt a draft for rfc6844bis
Apr 2018: Adopt a PKIX draft for SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
Apr 2018: Adopt a S/MIME draft for SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512
Jun 2018: Adopt a draft for short-lived certificate conventions
Jun 2018: Adopt a draft for the CMS with PSK
Jun 2018: Adopt a draft for hash-based signatures with the CMS
Jun 2018: Adopt a draft for root key rollover certificate extension
Jul 2018: rfc6844bis sent to IESG for standards track publication
Aug 2018: Root key rollover certificate extension sent to IESG for
            informational 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
Oct 2018: Short-lived certificate conventions sent to IESG for BCP
Oct 2018: The CMS with PSK sent to IESG for standards track publication
Dec 2018: Hash-based signatures with the CMS sent to IESG for standards
            track publication