IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-im-keyusage-00.txt

Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com> Wed, 17 April 2024 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
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 E2488C14F5EA for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-h-9AOcEohQ for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com (mail-ed1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5F1C14F6B9 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56fe7dc7f58so76016a12.2 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1713383956; x=1713988756; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/Khn4lOPPw9YJWtHlf6qN5JbUAUmkF+GpztrPFbujhA=; b=Ur3QLAANdlpz3XYqkl+7jQW2fjA5RX3IuLnypJNpyaXe/+hc+/qRFfB465/tI2P37s ZAean34g2HjPjYlRz/9Rj+aMxlA9R4XDowKdtkZSIGnTCPdG7CoTKWjQssyujCjU5yia GGXB8jvaRi+iCUvxuONhq01FeV4R7cNrtBIyZ99+puq6qNerM1fiFM6nS0Rm96PgIMFt RRiuEoO67M2GVtPE3zwgzohTnz3BNFcGlmlA092kM3M/rp5sZ7EJCJ+YeZ8jDtMb7gYR FrLeWcEz9jgqmP+nvfFtI5fDdGKcd9K3FU2INR59C/WG86a6nURU6H+SQvlz+nbLvS/G GqnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713383956; x=1713988756; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=/Khn4lOPPw9YJWtHlf6qN5JbUAUmkF+GpztrPFbujhA=; b=EWvbegFDdPSaaZbQ2pkRClMOTUdjMrrcFvV6nQCTZ0x8Khr5WrhP6hYDB+p3o2/qWK kMZD/zYO/iuf7dMSJCtqVzN9bN4awLuHPtXPDQGenMTWJZ3GtEIRMuZla95VrJje4D4n GsfDlrVOCDqn5NXE46Klm6SrzoI3QNbQWr8ssFHuaC8GqQSEnCGmmDk9KAn8DGhhLHEv USXK76O0EGq/9agr8EzG4yqGyvt5sJyz2ZmqmF67+AChDwoQYBOjvjDyjNdviZ840ETi xpFNCDrzrAN1oTqX/piNcFJiPo20nZlYvfR1W5HRGynLW7SHT7WKlwxFfXWb2gNAM4pX yB5g==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXlC56a1Dza3CzqMuLtbcA5lITUx8VP+cssBwga2K4wihqvDRqTOTADDV4zPXMbn2auE35Ce4Q/KsWgUGmgQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxYIvaWwMjfsyLYCg/18Xc8oyMGTetvZX194oV3CzuqBMwaONfN u/5/hOARHkux+NeH5wzNHX+w8tucplLEABx76VYkWN4DNjD38wqA1+W+zDFE8O2SqRkQWCtwZgf mi7cOUs9QLtXPU6Ca5QIpyu+U9eY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGRZUZCsHiwDFmAQksr78lJ35PdU23/IsQyUIb9Nh4iBoHdSfMk/bBUm41UF0+IMAj1ccCQIhzXsh7PYicH+7s=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d697:0:b0:56b:d139:490 with SMTP id r23-20020a50d697000000b0056bd1390490mr521533edi.6.1713383956267; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171320513468.22285.6899802433610546466@ietfa.amsl.com> <B508131E-0554-471F-94FD-4AA2A0A95346@vigilsec.com> <CAKoiRuYCSwdzwKwSXdyLCNm5Z3DzzzLZzSyDO7DGWHTSeUj-fA@mail.gmail.com> <2E8965D1-F0D8-4947-8A6B-19B822EEFA4C@vigilsec.com> <CH0PR11MB5739FF2B9A378DF7ADFF24E69F082@CH0PR11MB5739.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKoiRuY5Caq_61+99RQiaRkeKUAou=fiLj+HadajzhwhLKOdAA@mail.gmail.com> <CH0PR11MB5739A5999D59A046D056812C9F0F2@CH0PR11MB5739.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CH0PR11MB5739690323861CECECA630AF9F0F2@CH0PR11MB5739.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0f7f609b-9283-4f59-bb32-375827d3e7a6@nthpermutation.com> <SN7PR14MB64927E6AB1914083C485E0EA830F2@SN7PR14MB6492.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <CAKoiRuZeuDOG+Hm97mE2jwJ7w4gXjyvpTj7o3nOykQuufRDv_Q@mail.gmail.com> <16632693-C3FB-4018-88B4-EFE7C0F2A85B@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <16632693-C3FB-4018-88B4-EFE7C0F2A85B@akamai.com>
From: Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:59:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKoiRuZGW691Fq-gKf_my53viicE7Fq056Y8oVQVnpTsGm3v9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek=40digicert.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013d0430616504a3b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/ogpG4gNHEGjNGWlEqNOxo9V8xsg>
Subject: Re: [lamps] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-im-keyusage-00.txt
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: This is the mail list for the LAMPS Working Group <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, 17 Apr 2024 19:59:21 -0000

Hi,
The target usage of an IM identity is not TLS, it is end-to-end encryption
applications where a user or client (say Alice) wants to verify the
identity of another user or client (say Bob), and often have no transport
encryption link to. Servers do not have an IM identity. You would never use
an IM identity to authenticate a TLS server, so I don't see any relevance
to RFC 9525.

I hope this explanation makes sense.
Thanks,
-rohan

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:46 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

> Have any IM providers/vendors/open-source groups said they are interested
> in deploying this?
>
>
>
> RFC 9525 (replaced the venerable RFC 6125) has a lot of wording about IM
> systems and SAN fields. Are those not sufficient?
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email