Subject: [lamps] Proposal to adopt "Guidance on End-to-End E-mail Security" (draft-dkg-lamps-e2e-mail-guidance-00)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:20:43 +0000

Hi all,

I would like to propose that this document to be adopted by LAMPS. It 
will be a dependency for the Header Protection draft and I think 2 
drafts have complementary scopes.

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:26:01 -0500

On Tue 2020-11-10 18:20:43 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> I would like to propose that this document
> [draft-dkg-lamps-e2e-mail-guidance] to be adopted by LAMPS. It will be
> a dependency for the Header Protection draft and I think 2 drafts have
> complementary scopes.

Thanks Alexey.  I'm glad you find it useful.

As the initial author of the draft, i'd be happy to have it put under
the aegis of the WG, and i think it's definitely relevant here.  I also
volunteer to be the editor of it if it's adopted, and am willing to
shape it according to the consensus of the WG.

Most importantly, i'd love to get more feedback from other implementers
about the current context (and also, please let me know what it's
missing).

I've been continuing to update it in revision control at
https://gitlab.com/dkg/e2e-mail-guidance but of course i haven't
published it during the current enforced downtime for datatracker
submissions.

If there's a different place that LAMPS folks would prefer to follow
revision controlled development, let me know.  i can of course mirror
git in multiple places, but i'd prefer to have to only keep track of one
issue tracker and one queue of merge/pull requests.

      --dkg

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 20:29:53 +0100 (CET)

+1

--

http://ucom.ch/
Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet Technology

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to propose that this document to be adopted by LAMPS. It will be 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 06:40:24 -0500

>> a dependency for the Header Protection draft and I think 2 drafts have
[…]
> shape it according to the consensus of the WG.

in the WG meeting today at IETF 109, Russ suggested that we might need
some additional text in the charter to be able to adopt this draft.

I'm proposing the following addition:

4. Provide concrete guidance for implementers of mail user agents to
   promote interoperability of end-to-end cryptographic protection of
   e-mail messages.  This may include guidance about the generation,
   interpretation, and handling of protected messages; management of the
   relevant certificates; documentation of how to avoid common failure
   modes; strategies for deployment in a mixed environment; and test
   vectors and examples that can be used by implementers and interop
   test suites.  A more robust consensus among mail user agent
   implementers should result in more usable and useful cryptographic
   security guarantees for users of the tools.

Note that this ought to be sufficient to cover both the
e2e-mail-guidance document discussed in this thread, and also
draft-dkg-lamps-samples discussed in this list over the last week, if
that one wasn't already covered (some folks seem to think the
lamps-samples draft is already at last implicitly covered by the current
chartrer; this would just ensure that it's explicit).

If anyone has any concerns, or suggested edits to this charter addition,
i'd be happy to see them.

Regards,

        --dkg

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 13:10:04 +0000

>     security guarantees for users of the tools.
This looks good to me.