Re: [lamps] Potential Topics for LAMPS Recharter

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 30/03/18 19:05, Russ Housley wrote:
>> 2) draft-housley-cms-mts-hash-sig: SECDISPATCH suggested that the
>> LAMPS WG take on hash-based signatures for CMS as an additional work
>> item.
> 
> As I said at the mic in London, I support this work being done
> in the IETF, but I'm not sure LAMPS is a good choice. It's not
> a *terrible* choice, but doing this in LAMPS is a bit odd as I
> for one would argue that an experimental RFC could be the right
> target for this work and that seems like a mismatch with the
> LAMPS charter.
> 
> Re-chartering LAMPS to allow for this kind of work also seems
> to me to risk hitting the PKIX problem where we end up with a
> WG that's a catch-all for anything related to PKI. I figure
> that'd be a bad plan, but others may disagree.
> 
> In summary, I think maybe SUIT is a better match for hash-based
> sig work, given that s/w signing is the likely use-case for
> these schemes. That said, I'm not subscribed to SUIT so don't
> know if there's real interest from participants there either.
> I'd also be fine if the ADs spun up a new short-lived WG just
> for this work.

SUIT seems to be looking for the same document, but using COSE.

Russ