Re: [lamps] Potential Topics for LAMPS Recharter

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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.

FWIW, if the end result here is to do this work in LAMPS, I
won't whine about that. (I may whine if this WG really starts
turning into PKIX++ though:-)

S.