Re: [lamps] S/MIME fix

I am not sure why this discussion would cause confusion as it is normal for
people to discuss the broad outlines of a proposal before writing text. It
is also common for people to discuss an emerging security issue in a
closely related working group before deciding on what the appropriate venue
to hold discussions in would be.

Even more so in this case since the problem and solution spaces are
strongly constrained and I suspect that there is a very wide range of
agreement about what needs to be done and how to approach a solution.

But if you will insist on Internet Drafts relevant to the subject matter,
you will find my proposals on the topic here:

http://mathmesh.com/Resources/

Since my design brief was to provide a proof of concept, I started from a
clean state and ignored existing work. Now that we have established that
transparent end-to-end security is possible we can look at what changes we
would need to make to the existing mail infrastructure to apply that
approach to legacy systems.

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:

> I'm having trouble understanding how the current discussion relates to the
> LAMPS work. It sounds from Phil's initial message, is that this isn't
> related to LAMPS. There's been suggestions that this might be the
> CA/Browser Forum (despite the CA/Browser Forum not even having a proposed
> charter to clean this up), that this might be a W3C/WHATWG issue (despite
> the browsers explicitly rejecting some of these proposals), or perhaps
> somewhere else.
>
> For my own understanding, is there a concrete proposal for either a
> document or work LAMPS should take on? Otherwise, would it be better to
> have this discussion elsewhere?
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/18 10:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>
>> I am composing this in Gmail right now. And there is my outlook client in
>> the window underneath. The Web browser is not just a full fledged email
>> client, it is the client of choice.
>>
>>
>> I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole of semantics here, but
>> claiming that a browser is an email client because it can run Gmail is
>> fully congruent with claiming your operating system is an email client
>> because it can run Outlook.
>>
>> More to the point: you know what I meant.
>>
>> /a
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spasm mailing list
>> Spasm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>>
>>
>