IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Wed, 25 August 2021 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 C15F83A1C47 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 xTpZtVpuN8t7 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A04ED3A1C4A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BFB389C8 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 21:23:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hgb36N2V8kYn for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 21:23:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01697389C5 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 21:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B68F7BD for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 21:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <67DC5185-F440-4B2B-B2A0-CAC1BAD68A06@vigilsec.com>
References: <CD589623-52EE-4958-80AB-73F0CFB3A36E@vigilsec.com> <19561F5C-1EED-4D7E-81EB-210A2B47556C@vigilsec.com> <BE91DB62-683E-4AD6-9E0D-B11CCC247E5F@vigilsec.com> <87sfz8m34p.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <407442.1629223690@dooku> <D8AF50F7-05EF-40C6-8ADC-2F5E82FEC910@vigilsec.com> <CAErg=HE1_8jux58_XegD3UXz6ovyrhkc8mxHBdUgL0gNgt1EJA@mail.gmail.com> <67DC5185-F440-4B2B-B2A0-CAC1BAD68A06@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 21:18:20 -0400
Message-ID: <20498.1629854300@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/bN4cOUMlZJ80lxvrVumyRKrq2FM>
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, 25 Aug 2021 01:18:35 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    > Obviously any document that would make an assignment in any of the PKIX
    > or S/MIME registries needs consensus, with the possible exception of
    > the module OIDs, which have no impact on interoperability.

    > I agree that we want the WG to only make new assignments where there is
    > intent to implement.  How about the following?

    > The LAMPS WG will support new definitions of objects registered in the following
    > IANA registries when there is a known constituency interested in real deployment
    > of the new registration: 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).

    > To be clear about the scope, I have copied the topic associate with
    > these registries below.

I have no problem with the charter text.

I have a problem with the WG seeming to continuing to spend more time arguing over
changes to charter text than working on the actual documents.  Maybe it's a
bikeshed situation (arguing over charter text is easier than getting involved).
This is a complaint to the IESG.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email