Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Protection Levels

This matches my memory of the discussion.

Russ

> On Sep 30, 2020, at 4:04 PM, Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> wrote:
> 
> Below a summary of the issue on 'Protection Levels'. If anybody wishes to discuss this topic further or does not agree with the conclusion, please speek up within the next 10 days!
> 
> cheers,
> Bernie
> 
> 
> Text from slide:
> 
> - Specification is targeted for
>  - Signature and encryption
>  - Signature only
> 
> - Variations / corner-cases may pop up at receiving side, e.g.
>  - Encryption only
>  - Encryption before signature
>  - Signature and encryption, but
>    - Signature fails to validate
>    - Signature validates but the signing certificate revoked
>  - Signature only, but
>    -  with multiple valid signatures, layered atop each other?
> 
> - Which of those and to what extent do we need to document those?
> 
> 
> Conclusion at IETF-108 (as I understood):
> 
> - For the time being only specify cases (for sending and receiving side):
>  - Signature and encryption
>  - Signature only
> 
> - Decide lateron whether or not to include more guiance on how to deal
>  with (some of the) other cases on the receiving side.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm