Re: [lamps] Draft addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

I prefer this wording as well.

Russ


> On Jan 11, 2019, at 1:17 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu 2019-01-10 13:21:45 -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>> We seem to have moved on to other topics.  Does that mean we have settled on the text we want the IESG to add to the charter?
>> 
>>   7. Cryptographic protection of electronic mail headers: A
>>   mechanism to address this in S/MIME has been standardized
>>   in RFC 5751. The WG shall define solutions (both for
>>   signature and encryption) to close significant privacy,
>>   security and usability gaps in cryptographically-protected
>>   electronic mail.
> 
> I like the push and am happy to move forward with a charter that
> includes e-mail header protection.  But I'm a bit concerned about this
> text for mainly stylistic reasons -- the above text only mentions
> headers explicitly in the part before the colon, and it doesn't match
> the form of the other bullet points that are currently in the charter
> (no other bullet point starts with a set-off title like this; no other
> bullet point says "The WG shall…", etc).
> 
> I propose the following revision that matches the style of the existing
> charter elements (using Bernie's notation, i'll call this DKG-2):
> 
> --- BEGIN DKG-2 ---
> 
> 7. Update the specification for the cryptographic protection of e-mail
> headers - both for signatures and encryption - to improve the
> implementation situation with respect to privacy, security and usability
> in cryptographically-protected electronic mail.  Most current
> implementations of cryptographically-protected electronic mail protect
> only the body of the message, which leaves significant room for attacks
> against otherwise-protected messages.
> 
> --- END DKG-2 ---
> 
> if the group prefers the text Russ cited, i can live with it too.  i'd
> like to move on to the actual specification work.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>        --dkg