Subject: [dispatch] I-D Action: draft-birk-pep-trustwords-00.txt (fwd)

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:40:42 +0100 (CET)

Please be informed that (as promised in my earlier email) the 2nd I-D of 
the pEp (Pretty Easy Privacy) series has just been published. You can find 
it on:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birk-pep-trustwords/

Abstract:

   In public-key cryptography comparing the public keys' fingerprints of
   the communication partners involved is vital to ensure that there is
   no man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack on the communication channel.
   Fingerprints normally consist of a chain of hexadecimal chars.
   However, comparing hexadecimal strings is often impractical for
   regular users and prone to misunderstandings.

   To mitigate these challenges, this memo proposes the comparision of
   trustwords as opposed to hexadecimal strings.  Trustwords are common
   words in a natural language (e.g., English) to which the hexidecimal
   strings are mapped to.  This makes the verification process more
   natural.

If you consider this work useful, please express your option and view on 
this work on this list now. If you condider this not to be useful, 
please tell us why.

Anyways, we are looking forward to your feedback!

All the best
  Bernie

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:17 AM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-birk-pep-trustwords-00.txt
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

        Title           : pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Trustwords concept
        Authors         : Volker Birk
                          Hernani Marques
                          Bernie Hoeneisen
        Filename        : draft-birk-pep-trustwords-00.txt
        Pages           : 6
        Date            : 2018-02-22

Abstract:
   In public-key cryptography comparing the public keys' fingerprints of
   the communication partners involved is vital to ensure that there is
   no man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack on the communication channel.
   Fingerprints normally consist of a chain of hexadecimal chars.
   However, comparing hexadecimal strings is often impractical for
   regular users and prone to misunderstandings.

   To mitigate these challenges, this memo proposes the comparision of
   trustwords as opposed to hexadecimal strings.  Trustwords are common
   words in a natural language (e.g., English) to which the hexidecimal
   strings are mapped to.  This makes the verification process more
   natural.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birk-pep-trustwords/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-birk-pep-trustwords-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:12:24 +0100 (CET)

Just to let you know that draft-birk-pep-trustwords-00), has triggered 
quite some discussion on the SAAG list. Here the link to the archives:

   https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/maillist.html

Best,
  Bernie

--

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

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

>
> Please be informed that (as promised in my earlier email) the 2nd I-D of the 
> pEp (Pretty Easy Privacy) series has just been published. You can find it on:
>
> If you consider this work useful, please express your option and view on this 
> work on this list now. If you condider this not to be useful, please tell us 
> why.
>