IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> Wed, 07 November 2018 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
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 C4CAA130E19 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:37:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 IfH51HfrA3qo for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB1B127333 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>) id 1gKGX2-0006l9-2U for spasm@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 06:37:36 +0100
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 06:37:36 +0100
From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch
To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811070626270.25457@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
References: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/htZCpNtSeR4xlomODckx8hyhe80>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Proposed 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: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 05:37:43 -0000

I support the addition of Header protection to the charter and will review 
the document. As just mentioned by Hernani the pEp implementations will 
remain interoperable.

cheers
  Bernie (Ucom.ch / pEp)

--

http://ucom.ch/
Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet Technology


On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Russ Housley wrote:

> In the session earlier today, there was interest in adding a header 
> protection work item to the agenda.  Alexey talked about this in 
> Montreal, and he posted a draft a few weeks ago: 
> draft-melnikov-lamps-header-protection.  Several people said that they 
> would implement a solution if the WG produced an RFC on this topic.
>
> Three questions:
>
> 1) Do you support the addition of this work to the LAMPS charter?
>
> 2) If it is added, would you review the document?
>
> 3) If it results in an RFC, would you implement?
>
> Russ & Tim
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email