IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text

Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com> Mon, 15 February 2021 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tadahiko.ito.public@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 A69A93A1051 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:41:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 gqvK86NwgrjE for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D323A104A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id m20so6383094ilj.13 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:41:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pAPYNBBJ8Lvv7FzLbdb/UH5KfXvaRdhwXTdkmRRXMtY=; b=s+GiNJ7ckhGdkciElsHrr+ZbY3xJaKfllj1XkMBNVFMrIemc64dw57bc5YNHp2ZahF mnecn2pH/jcdnGeKXzeP5R8ixYHaPWcQic298Zdf6ARhTGUFxaBMf+N1efEAdMbii9V/ g5J0YcIkG0A9gXPZJ+rQEB2MX5o2UWyBG4aGKQo7nfip79osWybVwVpxS3maEytQa4ex lxztcdeDz866l1Ub62OVqEnsKYLabcBUSAN0iAL1ap584xIbnScIR5tYRiwH7qYUFRc8 R4UhxDr105YwJ09/kD33xk8/B2WzcJEBujaS2Ln4JTycXwWHLkC91LQChghQhiq2Ffwr sgDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pAPYNBBJ8Lvv7FzLbdb/UH5KfXvaRdhwXTdkmRRXMtY=; b=AUAZYuKPp1lL63uptiTp+gQkMi2iEC5EMhVn5swxIR+rVGjWppB5YbGfzIqKW8AUZk 2BXqb+yLf2zJl2xfCDipPufa2wvcGudNHkHAprzErezAk07gWHOHlzObBrwrmpN/lC17 lkSlMLdad2r7fa0nM8Tk5MaJV5sNHIBNX+ih1TmoONnSzfbXurZOjD7QEXw0jLTTETYD /nUh6drzcuho9HmYSvL9UJPkjy309NKKZg3Yo/ADvUotn9kPLJrQw2YivcMYcRCYjsY/ MC+gTy7VC17DukzU14gNKWULVE+fnaj5SGDM8gwDqAhw1Ye1b6FiIJ201eCkIRbndRp8 ijaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530IMN5RVVWIpamBYO6WdvoI4f1rQpMR0WBiMofJWr73hpDPvsx9 wBzUWArlwSouCHsRnQ/IF10OrZYy9uJcsdlDBCiiBgRmTko=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxl5HHG3PIqkM2duIHZE0VtOLgbpQH5OuEdrKfIopGiUxG4YzXvXo8ZC29J+LTxT85JtFrK+LL6PswpuBk+Ef8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f4e:: with SMTP id y14mr14648569ilj.60.1613418112491; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 11:41:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tadahiko Ito <tadahiko.ito.public@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 04:41:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFTXyYAD00RPhokSAWmyVom=yGCeSBwfzk4moXbvtJ_GdBvOHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007825f505bb652d07"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/u0i90blbh8tWJFuGKoBaXOpKwzE>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text
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: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 19:41:55 -0000

Hi Ryan

As far as can I see, RFC5280 is based on the directory system which seems
to be a general and ideal concept. As a result, 5280 seems to have become a
general and ideal "profile" for certificates. Since 5280 is general and
ideal (and too heavy), the actual implementations of PKI became a subset of
RFC5280.

I'm wondering if we can create some sort of a new Best Practice document
which assumes more specific use cases (e.g. webPKI, PKI with trust list and
without bridge, etc.) while making RFC5280 as an IS, which would fill in
the gaps.

(I am not sure if other forks will agree on such a document but ) doesn't
it solve your concern?

Regards Tadahiko Ito

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email