[lamps] Proposed addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 06 November 2018 03:35 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 2DDC812D4EA for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:35:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 qhBWnPS0fizS for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:35:01 -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 9F046127333 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:35:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D550300AA5 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:34:59 -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 qFUADKlVOlL8 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:34:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-9bbe.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9bbe.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.155.190]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D5D4300523 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:34:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Message-Id: <DC188C55-6FDE-4E64-9151-54815E96B50B@vigilsec.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:34:33 -0500
To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/y9l2Ws7hLDboVqdVT2PRk4Eet14>
Subject: [lamps] Proposed addition of header protection to the LAMPS charter
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:35:03 -0000

In the session earlier today, there was interest in adding a header protection work item to the agenda.  Alexey talked about this in Montreal, and he posted a draft a few weeks ago: draft-melnikov-lamps-header-protection.  Several people said that they would implement a solution if the WG produced an RFC on this topic.

Three questions:

1) Do you support the addition of this work to the LAMPS charter?

2) If it is added, would you review the document?

3) If it results in an RFC, would you implement?

Russ & Tim