IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-ito-documentsigning-eku

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 02 December 2021 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 CFB1D3A11A0 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 07:48:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 zp04f3anNSm6 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 07:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B2B33A119A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 07:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0863F300BF2 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:48:24 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Tu0_1QHmB8A8 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:48:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96A58300B38; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:48:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <62A752FC-988B-4BC1-B7AC-3E41D4EC1A52@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_500037C8-ABED-4620-BC2D-D9C86B852BD5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 10:48:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAFTXyYDeWhE=M1x=y6DzFZEbnO3CPRcHOPK197WYKzUJqv0epw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>, LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
To: Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com>
References: <CD589623-52EE-4958-80AB-73F0CFB3A36E@vigilsec.com> <1739DC01-D237-4080-99F2-1B82A4571C49@vigilsec.com> <30989087-E5C2-446C-9547-122032F60FE8@vigilsec.com> <CAFTXyYDeWhE=M1x=y6DzFZEbnO3CPRcHOPK197WYKzUJqv0epw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/thk5rtISx41nxhvSQR5oMwxF4a4>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Call for adoption for draft-ito-documentsigning-eku
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: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:48:27 -0000

Tadahiko:

It is clear that more discussion will take place on the backwards compatibility and interoperability topics, so it it fine to submit the current text, and make changes in future revisions.

Russ


> On Dec 2, 2021, at 3:35 AM, Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ and Tim
> 
> I am wondering the order of 
> 1) submitting draft-ietf-lamps... 　and 
> 2) fixing description of Stephan pointed out in his first comment (“Inclusion of this KeyPurposeId…”).
> 
> Which should we do first?
> 
> There were some migration and compatibility related comments and suggestions also, but we will deal with that on the later version of the draft.
> 
> Regards Tadahiko 
> 
> 
> 2021年12月2日(木) 6:23 Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>>:
> Tim and I just talked on the phone.  We both agree that there is consensus to adopt this document.  In fact, the discussion about what ought to go into the section on transition and interoperability has started.
> 
> Authors, please post draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku ...
> 
> For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
>   Russ
> 
> 
> > On Nov 10, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We have already discussing the assignment of an object identifier for document signing.  An earlier call for document adoption lead to a lot of comments.  We had a presentation at IETF 112, and the authors reported that they have clarified what is meant by document signing, added a section for how to use the public key and certificate, addressed concerns about the extended key usage as a policy identifier, and expanded the security considerations.  Following the IETF 112 presentation, no one spoke against against adoption of this document.  This call is to see if there is rough consensus for the LAMPS WG to proceed with adoption of the revised document.
> > 
> > Please send your reply about whether you support adopting draft-ito-documentsigning-eku as a WG document.  Please voice your support or raise concerns by 30 November 2021.
> > 
> > For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
> > Russ
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org <mailto:Spasm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email