IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Draft addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Sun, 06 January 2019 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 9FC85130DEC for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 16:05:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 3A1wo8z8ekox for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 16:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:116::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3023A126BED for <spasm@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 16:05:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (adfb5642.cst.lightpath.net [173.251.86.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE0FCF99D; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:05:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8ADD22027E; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 17:16:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
Cc: spasm@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901051041470.26171@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
References: <20190104012415.AA6C3200C425F9@ary.qy> <87h8eonzxx.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901051041470.26171@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 17:16:02 -0500
Message-ID: <87imz2lpi5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/gzjbhQYvUbop6tEmjb8KtTRZk30>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Draft addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter
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: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 00:05:50 -0000

On Sat 2019-01-05 11:09:03 +0100, bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch wrote:
> There are certainly more than just one implementation of S/MIME version 
> 3.1 / 3.2 Header Protection in the wild. Unfortunately, most of these 
> implementations offer this as an optional feature only (e.g. to prevent 
> interoperability issues). As a consequence, the Header protection feature 
> is mostly hidden.
>
> Outside the S/MIME world I am aware of at least 4 further implementations 
> that use RFC 5751 mechanisms for doing header protection.

Thanks for doing this research, Bernie.

It would inform the discussion if you could point to the implementations
you're talking about here.

        --dkg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email