[Svt] I'd like to see SVT move forward
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 04 February 2021 19:47 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: svt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: svt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4C83A178B for <svt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:47:25 -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 1Vy6egg722jL for <svt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:47:24 -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 5A2E73A178A for <svt@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06AC300BD0 for <svt@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:47:18 -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 P6WRv6wmIlX1 for <svt@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:47:16 -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 DAA34300AE5 for <svt@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:47:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B306C5E0-B0B2-47B1-BA76-8A41B2BD2679"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Message-Id: <C46A471B-7C1B-42E8-95DD-9FE0140E59C0@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 14:47:17 -0500
To: "svt@ietf.org" <svt@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/svt/cIv_Wx-DQlUWpO0IVRiYX1s8XhY>
Subject: [Svt] I'd like to see SVT move forward
X-BeenThere: svt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Signature Validation Tokens <svt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/svt>, <mailto:svt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/svt/>
List-Post: <mailto:svt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/svt>, <mailto:svt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 19:47:26 -0000
In October 2020, Stefan approached me about working with him on the SVT documents. I said that the information that was perviously presented had not convinced me that this was needed. That lead to a dialog about the digitally signed documents in archives. The examples that Stefan used were the Swedish Agency for Digital Government (DIGG) and eduSign. Further discussion of these use chases convinced me that there was value to this approach. These were included in the SECDISPATCH slides at IETF 109: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-secdispatch-draft-santesson-svt-00 I am not saying that the specifications are finished. Rather, I am saying let's talk about them. Has anyone on this list found things in the documents to praise or criticize? Russ
- [Svt] I'd like to see SVT move forward Russ Housley
- Re: [Svt] I'd like to see SVT move forward Stefan Santesson