From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Oct 16 08:57:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D0421F8934 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OOeNjO7TkFP for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4383D21F9A3D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBD99A4136 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:57:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thqiR3x0yUjn for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDD69A4133 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:57:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:55:59 -0400 Message-Id: To: IETF SMIME Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: [smime] PublishCert Content Type X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:57:01 -0000 The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2)=20 us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 1 } -- content types id-ct-publishCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-ct 3 } I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know where = it it used? If not, I will mark it "reserved and obsolete". Russ From turners@ieca.com Wed Oct 16 10:18:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3565011E81A4 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iFy0G046DtUX for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway12.websitewelcome.com (gateway12.websitewelcome.com [69.93.243.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393D111E8191 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway12.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 982B460F45D22; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:18:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway12.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD2B60F45C9D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:18:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [96.231.225.44] (port=65141 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VWUjp-0004ni-2I; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:18:25 -0500 Message-ID: <525ECA60.4030205@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:18:24 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley , IETF SMIME References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3286.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: (thunderfish.local) [96.231.225.44]:65141 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 4 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Subject: Re: [smime] PublishCert Content Type X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:18:31 -0000 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-smime-certdist-05 On 10/16/13 11:55 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. > > id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) > us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } > > id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 1 } -- content types > > id-ct-publishCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 3 } > > > I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know where it it used? If not, I will mark it "reserved and obsolete". > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > smime mailing list > smime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime > From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Oct 16 10:23:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F2E11E82D7 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nj0F1rnuo-9l for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2400C11E82DD for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE6E9A413A; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:23:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r95gmSStExBb; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60CE9A4139; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:23:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <525ECA60.4030205@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:23:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <525ECA60.4030205@ieca.com> To: Sean Turner , Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: IETF SMIME Subject: Re: [smime] PublishCert Content Type X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:23:30 -0000 Jim: Is "Reserved and Obsolete" the right way to characterize this OID? Russ On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-smime-certdist-05 >=20 > On 10/16/13 11:55 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >> The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. >>=20 >> id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2) >> us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } >>=20 >> id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 1 } -- content types >>=20 >> id-ct-publishCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-ct 3 } >>=20 >>=20 >> I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know = where it it used? If not, I will mark it "reserved and obsolete". >>=20 >> Russ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> smime mailing list >> smime@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime >>=20 From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Oct 16 12:09:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F98711E8144 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xRqzJmhzQ1de for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC1711E8136 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072EB9A412E for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:09:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNWZN4LG1DWh for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EC99A4124 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:09:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:09:05 -0400 Message-Id: To: IETF SMIME Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: [smime] TSReq Content Type X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:09:21 -0000 The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2)=20 us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 1 } -- content types id-ct-TSReq OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-ct 15 } I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know where = it it used? If not, I will mark it "reserved and obsolete". Russ From ietf@augustcellars.com Wed Oct 16 21:49:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BD421F9C90 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:49:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id leL8pUGtSQfc for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF3521F9A96 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (50-39-216-54.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.216.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29A9F2C9E7; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:49:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Russ Housley'" , "'Sean Turner'" References: <525ECA60.4030205@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:48:05 -0700 Message-ID: <030b01cecaf4$121b19c0$36514d40$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGJ0YUXM66SsIGVM3Bkx2dsbqlKtgJxXG9vAVn/UBaaY+on0A== Content-Language: en-us Cc: 'IETF SMIME' Subject: Re: [smime] PublishCert Content Type X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 04:49:44 -0000 I think it probably is the right path to follow. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:23 AM > To: Sean Turner; Jim Schaad > Cc: IETF SMIME > Subject: Re: [smime] PublishCert Content Type > > Jim: > > Is "Reserved and Obsolete" the right way to characterize this OID? > > Russ > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-smime-certdist-05 > > > > On 10/16/13 11:55 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > >> The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. > >> > >> id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) > >> us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } > >> > >> id-ct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 1 } -- content types > >> > >> id-ct-publishCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ct 3 } > >> > >> > >> I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know > where it it used? If not, I will mark it "reserved and obsolete". > >> > >> Russ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> smime mailing list > >> smime@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime > >> From housley@vigilsec.com Thu Oct 17 14:54:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F9811E825E for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:54:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8Qk1JfDwki4 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EA111E8188 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040B39A4144 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:55:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A8lbpXIsWBUu for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F389A413F for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:55:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-114-12744181; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:54:29 -0400 Message-Id: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> To: IETF SMIME Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:54:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail-114-12744181 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2)=20 us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 2 } -- attributes id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know where = it it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in RFC = 3183, but it is not used in that document. If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will mark it = "reserved and obsolete". Russ --Apple-Mail-114-12744181 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKXDCCBSow ggQSoAMCAQICEQCEqD5PUTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv biBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEzMDkyNjAwMDAwMFoXDTE0MDkyNjIzNTk1OVowJTEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQDfzA6zhm2H/Ci8addWaVlv6R6Kc99TKX6N2RV33fhszpBcrbhwlZkM8fhJKlnN FgzmOP53PNM0g2mRvaHIqf46F9gCsdMoV6aOyjIepOvExE9SnfGphALelUhRxluX/Oj4yuttICB0 JK7C5lZ+wCISxs7X7is6+JWQDhF/DC7BIq5AtyjMQsSGJa4UaUY9Vrfg3gt90hxUaM3vWuCE2Bwo jfvw3iThierQ+MZ6ey8bawuB7B+UTtZEA/SqwEDzo8e1y7Y6R01OLmAMY0fA5OmH6vANmM+PjoRG Ak3g7oVHudVv1dvXg9JX1RUqhBclZSfne9eH+dDeKq10mFbZH4O3AgMBAAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU80oy1Z4b4p60Ekl5pFmSdSsf 2eIwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysG AQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATAr MCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9j cnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxD QS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRo b3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAPIJ6QrEU8D+2b8VM/5C5V92z WDN7hhuFuktYWEqHIp2oa7+jlhhT+hFceHI8mK9WPauZhZrGbePPYrC1lllJNySwd+VqPWxzQXCf 6VR8bRRjE55dIexlOzPFpSoTeURrGMkyiRnheUzAXiinvKVZvFN+BA9L/7XmfrEA7gaZ3LokCAQn PFyqd8Y/ee9xkkrMS9kpOZPPVXeCZ3umv3icFNxxcf9Bt64pz4F+n4Z8zFebQ4llh4sQz4fjmGtP U6GRAAGjJVXj9ECVlBUpQRzmc2a8ROCLUUrk1fdG6ilhZwxWdqCBLrD/qHElB59AGFEKCXtCIr0m yvMTK4AbO3kAoDCCBSowggQSoAMCAQICEQCWQVO8Se/ELTDvfzPfbE7PMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUA MIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdT YWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEyMDMwMTAwMDAwMFoXDTEz MDMwMTIzNTk1OVowJTEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDf+ZqfVh9j1/uT+utUViLKlpZAA9aLSKUcj8NOg8ei ofsmSrgv9WhqLZqd3zgWUXlCMv8X25RJ1JvAP8ZuRMs5nYhalLhSIBt4fnyYQ3XSdD21V/cfXb6O YngaVbFz2QR/3/kNXwBhPttzTQm2Caen/xtcyqiguNmVHCx1jh0mjq0XwYCBc6xg8c/GM26t9RGa ZG0zB0kdfAj61sussqYQ080u9WjL9/oguapIjDQ4aO6LY+m0qL+2Vavk44wFPeDtFHA9hujoPcc6 3E0l/U5PRYpGAmHp1UEC1jBU7uYd/iewV2EDEkDX55WLIpGZfoBF+uKx1VoPmEZltPqljg8hAgMB AAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU9jGb v3XM7fKm9udp1jtSoF5Y4HQwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkw FwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysGAQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsG DCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQ UzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRB dXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYB BQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9u YW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNv bTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRob3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAgSXP b1o6jO+b+6FUddXr55XJwQ2QdnXMq9vZjvrMT9QsWT9w9M24/qKcQAIy7DKoPbWYdks6XwSAG3lY fxUyCEDcq8nIbegFO9OvB7KlNg/3W0JkpUeBNqFywnXtQh4WR/dCXfoxxiKgvR2BGyMXrkfSfb5N U3wUZC0bHeMczwzFReMFQjaY08y2V1rReTVxL4wSag9cMUtOzSLVbBWhiNAOxLiA7yu3EqfpsW93 5htmCXVLk2JQj4mbGEPmwx2JJRIKjfZKfdAnaI/TVbO2tUgc60Fgx+C+der2gFaqvC1pKRSM/mOq P7KFfSMoCnoV8EpxcUK6JcjZfvD5SQJJlDGCA64wggOqAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEb MBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFD T01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBh bmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAlkFTvEnvxC0w738z32xOzzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2TAYBgkq hkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTcyMTU0MzBaMCMGCSqG SIb3DQEJBDEWBBSBhPMbgs0oxfvXh4pW2hXZmXxtMjCBugYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGsMIGpMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3Jk MRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRo ZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAhKg+T1Exac6lJk+QhH6zizCBvAYLKoZI hvcNAQkQAgsxgayggakwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0 ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQD EzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEQCEqD5P UTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAK6ZXBLeJDlvVDOfOpz6vnw6syb+YXgpJbX4 F0O9Ju2d0s1tzUoQhkmN3oC7pcsrM3tryPR1PGAltrKn3RlUFW8Oi/we88ZrRTugOeBzOgLfoeER +oky5WkMCHrb4vvebSnHpw7iqXXKVbA5gXu4NKiA4xaweDdmPGtuEbXM0MGODi47FR0Io9DbTuuO 35gz+V+AHz2YKYn8PJGMj2GK6LaAKSwgKhKHUHnN8Kjakt8L8lwMZo6owulPN/zRcNVgGkPN2awi 7V8aO0y2F8nVcz1nMyxSGkd6a2MhtYsf2oSj4ziIjWzoXilciAMwwYMnz/80kKu815vokRZbWDag 5ecAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-114-12744181-- From ietf@augustcellars.com Thu Oct 17 15:15:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF1421F8FE5 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdSIFl90vN-u for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C206B21F92CD for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FA772CA4F; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Russ Housley'" , "'IETF SMIME'" References: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:13:47 -0700 Message-ID: <03c101cecb86$277c5940$76750bc0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKmxG0syA+Q9/S3pFaOMbQ68LWp/5hJg26g Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:15:21 -0000 RFC 3183 > -----Original Message----- > From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Russ Housley > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:54 PM > To: IETF SMIME > Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID > > The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. > > id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) > us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } > > id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 2 } -- attributes > > id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-aa 28 } > > I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know where it > it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in RFC 3183, but > it is not used in that document. > > If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will mark it > "reserved and obsolete". > > Russ From ietf@augustcellars.com Thu Oct 17 15:17:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0835021F8FE5 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oglBZRdBc0CY for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A7A21F83E2 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 714712CA16; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:16:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Russ Housley'" , "'IETF SMIME'" References: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:15:40 -0700 Message-ID: <03c201cecb86$6ac848d0$4058da70$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKmxG0syA+Q9/S3pFaOMbQ68LWp/5hJg4VA Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:17:12 -0000 Mistype - RFC 3183 seems to be where it started from - but is now using a different marker. However, it seems to have been overloaded in a strange way. I think this may be a fault in the way the RFC progressed. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Russ Housley > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:54 PM > To: IETF SMIME > Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID > > The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. > > id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) > us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } > > id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 2 } -- attributes > > id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-aa 28 } > > I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know where it > it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in RFC 3183, but > it is not used in that document. > > If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will mark it > "reserved and obsolete". > > Russ From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Oct 18 07:03:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293E011E819D for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:03:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t+i-fdzc5sy8 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF2B11E817F for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322229A414F; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:03:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FrjvyW+spXvF; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA889A414E; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:03:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-116-70855658; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <03c201cecb86$6ac848d0$4058da70$@augustcellars.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:03:01 -0400 Message-Id: <010034BF-254A-4B0E-AB48-FB655E483855@vigilsec.com> References: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> <03c201cecb86$6ac848d0$4058da70$@augustcellars.com> To: "Jim Schaad" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: 'IETF SMIME' Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:03:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail-116-70855658 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm not sure. RFC 3183 says: An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of signature. This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used. The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: - SignatureType ::=3D SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER It seems to me that the specification fails to also say that the = signature type attribute is identified by >> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } Russ On Oct 17, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > Mistype -=20 >=20 > RFC 3183 seems to be where it started from - but is now using a = different > marker. However, it seems to have been overloaded in a strange way. = I > think this may be a fault in the way the RFC progressed. >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Russ Housley >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:54 PM >> To: IETF SMIME >> Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID >>=20 >> The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. >>=20 >> id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2) >> us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } >>=20 >> id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 2 } -- attributes >>=20 >> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } >>=20 >> I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know = where > it >> it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in RFC = 3183, > but >> it is not used in that document. >>=20 >> If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will mark = it >> "reserved and obsolete". >>=20 >> Russ >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-116-70855658 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKXDCCBSow ggQSoAMCAQICEQCEqD5PUTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv biBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEzMDkyNjAwMDAwMFoXDTE0MDkyNjIzNTk1OVowJTEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQDfzA6zhm2H/Ci8addWaVlv6R6Kc99TKX6N2RV33fhszpBcrbhwlZkM8fhJKlnN FgzmOP53PNM0g2mRvaHIqf46F9gCsdMoV6aOyjIepOvExE9SnfGphALelUhRxluX/Oj4yuttICB0 JK7C5lZ+wCISxs7X7is6+JWQDhF/DC7BIq5AtyjMQsSGJa4UaUY9Vrfg3gt90hxUaM3vWuCE2Bwo jfvw3iThierQ+MZ6ey8bawuB7B+UTtZEA/SqwEDzo8e1y7Y6R01OLmAMY0fA5OmH6vANmM+PjoRG Ak3g7oVHudVv1dvXg9JX1RUqhBclZSfne9eH+dDeKq10mFbZH4O3AgMBAAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU80oy1Z4b4p60Ekl5pFmSdSsf 2eIwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysG AQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATAr MCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9j cnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxD QS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRo b3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAPIJ6QrEU8D+2b8VM/5C5V92z WDN7hhuFuktYWEqHIp2oa7+jlhhT+hFceHI8mK9WPauZhZrGbePPYrC1lllJNySwd+VqPWxzQXCf 6VR8bRRjE55dIexlOzPFpSoTeURrGMkyiRnheUzAXiinvKVZvFN+BA9L/7XmfrEA7gaZ3LokCAQn PFyqd8Y/ee9xkkrMS9kpOZPPVXeCZ3umv3icFNxxcf9Bt64pz4F+n4Z8zFebQ4llh4sQz4fjmGtP U6GRAAGjJVXj9ECVlBUpQRzmc2a8ROCLUUrk1fdG6ilhZwxWdqCBLrD/qHElB59AGFEKCXtCIr0m yvMTK4AbO3kAoDCCBSowggQSoAMCAQICEQCWQVO8Se/ELTDvfzPfbE7PMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUA MIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdT YWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEyMDMwMTAwMDAwMFoXDTEz MDMwMTIzNTk1OVowJTEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDf+ZqfVh9j1/uT+utUViLKlpZAA9aLSKUcj8NOg8ei ofsmSrgv9WhqLZqd3zgWUXlCMv8X25RJ1JvAP8ZuRMs5nYhalLhSIBt4fnyYQ3XSdD21V/cfXb6O YngaVbFz2QR/3/kNXwBhPttzTQm2Caen/xtcyqiguNmVHCx1jh0mjq0XwYCBc6xg8c/GM26t9RGa ZG0zB0kdfAj61sussqYQ080u9WjL9/oguapIjDQ4aO6LY+m0qL+2Vavk44wFPeDtFHA9hujoPcc6 3E0l/U5PRYpGAmHp1UEC1jBU7uYd/iewV2EDEkDX55WLIpGZfoBF+uKx1VoPmEZltPqljg8hAgMB AAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU9jGb v3XM7fKm9udp1jtSoF5Y4HQwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkw FwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysGAQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsG DCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQ UzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRB dXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYB BQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9u YW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNv bTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRob3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAgSXP b1o6jO+b+6FUddXr55XJwQ2QdnXMq9vZjvrMT9QsWT9w9M24/qKcQAIy7DKoPbWYdks6XwSAG3lY fxUyCEDcq8nIbegFO9OvB7KlNg/3W0JkpUeBNqFywnXtQh4WR/dCXfoxxiKgvR2BGyMXrkfSfb5N U3wUZC0bHeMczwzFReMFQjaY08y2V1rReTVxL4wSag9cMUtOzSLVbBWhiNAOxLiA7yu3EqfpsW93 5htmCXVLk2JQj4mbGEPmwx2JJRIKjfZKfdAnaI/TVbO2tUgc60Fgx+C+der2gFaqvC1pKRSM/mOq P7KFfSMoCnoV8EpxcUK6JcjZfvD5SQJJlDGCA64wggOqAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEb MBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFD T01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBh bmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAlkFTvEnvxC0w738z32xOzzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2TAYBgkq hkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTgxNDAzMDFaMCMGCSqG SIb3DQEJBDEWBBSTZpMtMzxzcZ98QQOfNnGVpow+1jCBugYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGsMIGpMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3Jk MRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRo ZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAhKg+T1Exac6lJk+QhH6zizCBvAYLKoZI hvcNAQkQAgsxgayggakwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0 ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQD EzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEQCEqD5P UTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBABy6VjVPVEPzHFrN3FypCALVLN/lglHyVjVX 3qFQpeAJIbzH8YInfZcYBItzVYQYaYr1c988/rbi9IKYucJBxbKHZ2Bj1FEQP1T32Sn2H4OogBqh 5Cx0BZaxSrSUthI68NnkZhfA9cOLUPlWlf28USjKC3Uh/vFTAi6oUxejU5ejauEPgSYrqSSVVuSm HO3e48vh8dNcSEisHIZwZdMa5SRhQkWpIT4Y0fIomcgvTsdTjQLB4C8aGo6GTuFyIOG7vC/XXRXp glTZZ7vEO+h3egfZSYjlUZ/a57Km8xe4giSFmSG85VwdxYBfo0gjnR7DjWkLcoYV3meL+gsR+1yF JSkAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-116-70855658-- From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Oct 18 07:52:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63A921F9D18 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:52:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcGzSUSyTa5E for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D0B11E8232 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9742CB1E073; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:44:26 -0700 (PDT) To: tbdean@QinetiQ.com, wjottaway@QinetiQ.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, turners@ieca.com, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, blaker@gmail.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20131018144426.9742CB1E073@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, smime@ietf.org Subject: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3183 (3757) X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:52:44 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3183, "Domain Security Services using S/MIME". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3183&eid=3757 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Russ Housley Section: 3.1.2 Original Text ------------- An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of signature. This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used. The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: - SignatureType ::= SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER Corrected Text -------------- An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of signature. This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used. The following object identifier identifies the SignatureType attribute: id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 28 } The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: SignatureType ::= SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER Notes ----- The specification provides the syntax for the SignatureType attribute, but it fails to provide the object identifier for the attribute. The object identifier was assigned, but for some reason it is not provided in the document. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC3183 (draft-ietf-smime-domsec-09) -------------------------------------- Title : Domain Security Services using S/MIME Publication Date : October 2001 Author(s) : T. Dean, W. Ottaway Category : EXPERIMENTAL Source : S/MIME Mail Security Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Oct 18 07:58:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E461111E828C for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:58:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROfk8o9QJvET for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0CE11E82EC for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7C69A414E for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:59:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTp9HdOH89U9 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749909A4148 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:59:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-126-74171196; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:58:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <010034BF-254A-4B0E-AB48-FB655E483855@vigilsec.com> To: IETF SMIME References: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> <03c201cecb86$6ac848d0$4058da70$@augustcellars.com> <010034BF-254A-4B0E-AB48-FB655E483855@vigilsec.com> Message-Id: <3A13B7E1-3C52-4C14-9792-39F3BF99EFE0@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:58:45 -0000 --Apple-Mail-126-74171196 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I submitted an errata. http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3D3757 Russ On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I'm not sure. RFC 3183 says: >=20 > An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of = signature. > This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions > specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message > containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the > software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used. >=20 > The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: - >=20 > SignatureType ::=3D SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER >=20 > It seems to me that the specification fails to also say that the = signature type attribute is identified by >=20 >>> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } >=20 > Russ >=20 >=20 > On Oct 17, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: >=20 >> Mistype -=20 >>=20 >> RFC 3183 seems to be where it started from - but is now using a = different >> marker. However, it seems to have been overloaded in a strange way. = I >> think this may be a fault in the way the RFC progressed. >>=20 >> Jim >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Russ Housley >>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:54 PM >>> To: IETF SMIME >>> Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID >>>=20 >>> The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. >>>=20 >>> id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2) >>> us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } >>>=20 >>> id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 2 } -- attributes >>>=20 >>> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } >>>=20 >>> I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know = where >> it >>> it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in RFC = 3183, >> but >>> it is not used in that document. >>>=20 >>> If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will = mark it >>> "reserved and obsolete". >>>=20 >>> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > smime mailing list > smime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime --Apple-Mail-126-74171196 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKXDCCBSow ggQSoAMCAQICEQCEqD5PUTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv biBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEzMDkyNjAwMDAwMFoXDTE0MDkyNjIzNTk1OVowJTEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQDfzA6zhm2H/Ci8addWaVlv6R6Kc99TKX6N2RV33fhszpBcrbhwlZkM8fhJKlnN FgzmOP53PNM0g2mRvaHIqf46F9gCsdMoV6aOyjIepOvExE9SnfGphALelUhRxluX/Oj4yuttICB0 JK7C5lZ+wCISxs7X7is6+JWQDhF/DC7BIq5AtyjMQsSGJa4UaUY9Vrfg3gt90hxUaM3vWuCE2Bwo jfvw3iThierQ+MZ6ey8bawuB7B+UTtZEA/SqwEDzo8e1y7Y6R01OLmAMY0fA5OmH6vANmM+PjoRG Ak3g7oVHudVv1dvXg9JX1RUqhBclZSfne9eH+dDeKq10mFbZH4O3AgMBAAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU80oy1Z4b4p60Ekl5pFmSdSsf 2eIwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysG AQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATAr MCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9j cnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxD QS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRo b3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAPIJ6QrEU8D+2b8VM/5C5V92z WDN7hhuFuktYWEqHIp2oa7+jlhhT+hFceHI8mK9WPauZhZrGbePPYrC1lllJNySwd+VqPWxzQXCf 6VR8bRRjE55dIexlOzPFpSoTeURrGMkyiRnheUzAXiinvKVZvFN+BA9L/7XmfrEA7gaZ3LokCAQn PFyqd8Y/ee9xkkrMS9kpOZPPVXeCZ3umv3icFNxxcf9Bt64pz4F+n4Z8zFebQ4llh4sQz4fjmGtP U6GRAAGjJVXj9ECVlBUpQRzmc2a8ROCLUUrk1fdG6ilhZwxWdqCBLrD/qHElB59AGFEKCXtCIr0m yvMTK4AbO3kAoDCCBSowggQSoAMCAQICEQCWQVO8Se/ELTDvfzPfbE7PMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUA MIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdT YWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEyMDMwMTAwMDAwMFoXDTEz MDMwMTIzNTk1OVowJTEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDf+ZqfVh9j1/uT+utUViLKlpZAA9aLSKUcj8NOg8ei ofsmSrgv9WhqLZqd3zgWUXlCMv8X25RJ1JvAP8ZuRMs5nYhalLhSIBt4fnyYQ3XSdD21V/cfXb6O YngaVbFz2QR/3/kNXwBhPttzTQm2Caen/xtcyqiguNmVHCx1jh0mjq0XwYCBc6xg8c/GM26t9RGa ZG0zB0kdfAj61sussqYQ080u9WjL9/oguapIjDQ4aO6LY+m0qL+2Vavk44wFPeDtFHA9hujoPcc6 3E0l/U5PRYpGAmHp1UEC1jBU7uYd/iewV2EDEkDX55WLIpGZfoBF+uKx1VoPmEZltPqljg8hAgMB AAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU9jGb v3XM7fKm9udp1jtSoF5Y4HQwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkw FwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysGAQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsG DCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQ UzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRB dXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYB BQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9u YW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNv bTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRob3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAgSXP b1o6jO+b+6FUddXr55XJwQ2QdnXMq9vZjvrMT9QsWT9w9M24/qKcQAIy7DKoPbWYdks6XwSAG3lY fxUyCEDcq8nIbegFO9OvB7KlNg/3W0JkpUeBNqFywnXtQh4WR/dCXfoxxiKgvR2BGyMXrkfSfb5N U3wUZC0bHeMczwzFReMFQjaY08y2V1rReTVxL4wSag9cMUtOzSLVbBWhiNAOxLiA7yu3EqfpsW93 5htmCXVLk2JQj4mbGEPmwx2JJRIKjfZKfdAnaI/TVbO2tUgc60Fgx+C+der2gFaqvC1pKRSM/mOq P7KFfSMoCnoV8EpxcUK6JcjZfvD5SQJJlDGCA64wggOqAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEb MBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFD T01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBh bmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAlkFTvEnvxC0w738z32xOzzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2TAYBgkq hkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTgxNDU4MTdaMCMGCSqG SIb3DQEJBDEWBBSXaspnoHHuJ+6GXYnXZPAlUO1qATCBugYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGsMIGpMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3Jk MRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRo ZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAhKg+T1Exac6lJk+QhH6zizCBvAYLKoZI hvcNAQkQAgsxgayggakwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0 ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQD EzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEQCEqD5P UTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAHacyFPyihdVDhDS6QY81uYoUTDe1rwWOaW1 0GPXWgXt15//uv9k0XnTgxiS4BXQ5MrP2waw9jfcdGkQMrrjNHnl7Vq79zu/GBeedEuYovlw98RD 1b5VBQkMgtLTpyUU9EXU/iU2vDbJro7jsnxB13T57lIp8K6om5dTaFtv2OsMLTpEyjVEKCfAdUe1 ZOtOTpbgSkEp/LgS2b0JxD7+KS55bJddZDx6bChpx15qsdxptn9Mr3db3/frKkWSbrxT+qqPWdAs zDsNw2pjfoxdOuruO5CvcbZdEpnkCH6oZCVuEHxYpM6GqDqleToXhzrD26iUNM0XZqv2wOqCUwMe snMAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-126-74171196-- From ietf@augustcellars.com Fri Oct 18 08:05:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79FD11E819D for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBoZT0EuuS2N for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.pacifier.net (smtp3.pacifier.net [64.255.237.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049DB1F0CF8 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp3.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDF0538F08; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Russ Housley'" References: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> <03c201cecb86$6ac848d0$4058da70$@augustcellars.com> <010034BF-254A-4B0E-AB48-FB655E483855@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <010034BF-254A-4B0E-AB48-FB655E483855@vigilsec.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:03:49 -0700 Message-ID: <045e01cecc13$40aabfa0$c2003ee0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKmxG0syA+Q9/S3pFaOMbQ68LWp/wHKWuQ9AYEc7QOYMEFD8A== Content-Language: en-us Cc: 'IETF SMIME' Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:05:18 -0000 I made the assumption that the attribute is actually identified by id-sti instead of id-aa-signtureType. It was done the other way in a draft document. I guess we would need to query the authors if it is wrong. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:03 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: 'IETF SMIME' > Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID > > I'm not sure. RFC 3183 says: > > An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of signature. > This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions > specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message > containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the > software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used. > > The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: - > > SignatureType ::= SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER > > It seems to me that the specification fails to also say that the signature type > attribute is identified by > > >> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-aa 28 } > > Russ > > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > Mistype - > > > > RFC 3183 seems to be where it started from - but is now using a different > > marker. However, it seems to have been overloaded in a strange way. I > > think this may be a fault in the way the RFC progressed. > > > > Jim > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Russ Housley > >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:54 PM > >> To: IETF SMIME > >> Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID > >> > >> The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. > >> > >> id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) > >> us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } > >> > >> id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-smime 2 } -- attributes > >> > >> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-aa 28 } > >> > >> I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know > where > > it > >> it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in RFC 3183, > > but > >> it is not used in that document. > >> > >> If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will mark it > >> "reserved and obsolete". > >> > >> Russ > > > > From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Oct 18 08:11:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A358621F9C3A for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:11:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PMj5vXJBppUx for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA0C11E81B5 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFCF9A4148; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:11:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNXNGBsb7cio; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB16A9A414C; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-131-74968967; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <045e01cecc13$40aabfa0$c2003ee0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:11:34 -0400 Message-Id: References: <6FF9CAC1-8232-4DD5-8120-8144D9AE3A0F@vigilsec.com> <03c201cecb86$6ac848d0$4058da70$@augustcellars.com> <010034BF-254A-4B0E-AB48-FB655E483855@vigilsec.com> <045e01cecc13$40aabfa0$c2003ee0$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: 'IETF SMIME' Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:11:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail-131-74968967 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You may be correct, but the OID for this attribute was assigned. We = know the authors did some implementation, so it would be nice to hear = what was actually done. Russ On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Jim Schaad wrote: > I made the assumption that the attribute is actually identified by = id-sti > instead of id-aa-signtureType. =20 >=20 > It was done the other way in a draft document. I guess we would need = to > query the authors if it is wrong. >=20 > Jim >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:03 AM >> To: Jim Schaad >> Cc: 'IETF SMIME' >> Subject: Re: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID >>=20 >> I'm not sure. RFC 3183 says: >>=20 >> An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of = signature. >> This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions >> specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message >> containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the >> software to verify that the correct naming convention has been = used. >>=20 >> The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: - >>=20 >> SignatureType ::=3D SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER >>=20 >> It seems to me that the specification fails to also say that the = signature > type >> attribute is identified by >>=20 >>>> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } >>=20 >> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: >>=20 >>> Mistype - >>>=20 >>> RFC 3183 seems to be where it started from - but is now using a > different >>> marker. However, it seems to have been overloaded in a strange way. = I >>> think this may be a fault in the way the RFC progressed. >>>=20 >>> Jim >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Russ Housley >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:54 PM >>>> To: IETF SMIME >>>> Subject: [smime] SignatureType Attribute OID >>>>=20 >>>> The S/MIME arc contains an assignment for this OID. >>>>=20 >>>> id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2) >>>> us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 16 } >>>>=20 >>>> id-aa OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-smime 2 } -- attributes >>>>=20 >>>> id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { id-aa 28 } >>>>=20 >>>> I cannot find an RFC that makes use of this OID. Does anyone know >> where >>> it >>>> it used? It seems to be related to the Domain Security stuff in = RFC > 3183, >>> but >>>> it is not used in that document. >>>>=20 >>>> If no one can point me to a place where this OID is used, I will = mark > it >>>> "reserved and obsolete". >>>>=20 >>>> Russ >>>=20 >>>=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-131-74968967 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKXDCCBSow ggQSoAMCAQICEQCEqD5PUTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv biBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEzMDkyNjAwMDAwMFoXDTE0MDkyNjIzNTk1OVowJTEj MCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQDfzA6zhm2H/Ci8addWaVlv6R6Kc99TKX6N2RV33fhszpBcrbhwlZkM8fhJKlnN FgzmOP53PNM0g2mRvaHIqf46F9gCsdMoV6aOyjIepOvExE9SnfGphALelUhRxluX/Oj4yuttICB0 JK7C5lZ+wCISxs7X7is6+JWQDhF/DC7BIq5AtyjMQsSGJa4UaUY9Vrfg3gt90hxUaM3vWuCE2Bwo jfvw3iThierQ+MZ6ey8bawuB7B+UTtZEA/SqwEDzo8e1y7Y6R01OLmAMY0fA5OmH6vANmM+PjoRG Ak3g7oVHudVv1dvXg9JX1RUqhBclZSfne9eH+dDeKq10mFbZH4O3AgMBAAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU80oy1Z4b4p60Ekl5pFmSdSsf 2eIwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysG AQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATAr MCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9j cnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxD QS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRo b3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAPIJ6QrEU8D+2b8VM/5C5V92z WDN7hhuFuktYWEqHIp2oa7+jlhhT+hFceHI8mK9WPauZhZrGbePPYrC1lllJNySwd+VqPWxzQXCf 6VR8bRRjE55dIexlOzPFpSoTeURrGMkyiRnheUzAXiinvKVZvFN+BA9L/7XmfrEA7gaZ3LokCAQn PFyqd8Y/ee9xkkrMS9kpOZPPVXeCZ3umv3icFNxxcf9Bt64pz4F+n4Z8zFebQ4llh4sQz4fjmGtP U6GRAAGjJVXj9ECVlBUpQRzmc2a8ROCLUUrk1fdG6ilhZwxWdqCBLrD/qHElB59AGFEKCXtCIr0m yvMTK4AbO3kAoDCCBSowggQSoAMCAQICEQCWQVO8Se/ELTDvfzPfbE7PMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUA MIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdT YWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEyMDMwMTAwMDAwMFoXDTEz MDMwMTIzNTk1OVowJTEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUaG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20wggEiMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDf+ZqfVh9j1/uT+utUViLKlpZAA9aLSKUcj8NOg8ei ofsmSrgv9WhqLZqd3zgWUXlCMv8X25RJ1JvAP8ZuRMs5nYhalLhSIBt4fnyYQ3XSdD21V/cfXb6O YngaVbFz2QR/3/kNXwBhPttzTQm2Caen/xtcyqiguNmVHCx1jh0mjq0XwYCBc6xg8c/GM26t9RGa ZG0zB0kdfAj61sussqYQ080u9WjL9/oguapIjDQ4aO6LY+m0qL+2Vavk44wFPeDtFHA9hujoPcc6 3E0l/U5PRYpGAmHp1UEC1jBU7uYd/iewV2EDEkDX55WLIpGZfoBF+uKx1VoPmEZltPqljg8hAgMB AAGjggHkMIIB4DAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU9jGb v3XM7fKm9udp1jtSoF5Y4HQwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkw FwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysGAQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsG DCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQ UzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRB dXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYB BQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9u YW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNv bTAfBgNVHREEGDAWgRRob3VzbGV5QHZpZ2lsc2VjLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAgSXP b1o6jO+b+6FUddXr55XJwQ2QdnXMq9vZjvrMT9QsWT9w9M24/qKcQAIy7DKoPbWYdks6XwSAG3lY fxUyCEDcq8nIbegFO9OvB7KlNg/3W0JkpUeBNqFywnXtQh4WR/dCXfoxxiKgvR2BGyMXrkfSfb5N U3wUZC0bHeMczwzFReMFQjaY08y2V1rReTVxL4wSag9cMUtOzSLVbBWhiNAOxLiA7yu3EqfpsW93 5htmCXVLk2JQj4mbGEPmwx2JJRIKjfZKfdAnaI/TVbO2tUgc60Fgx+C+der2gFaqvC1pKRSM/mOq P7KFfSMoCnoV8EpxcUK6JcjZfvD5SQJJlDGCA64wggOqAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEb MBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFD T01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBh bmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAlkFTvEnvxC0w738z32xOzzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2TAYBgkq hkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTgxNTExMzVaMCMGCSqG SIb3DQEJBDEWBBQNVIDCsOgb1vSSqdev1P3QJTdZkjCBugYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGsMIGpMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3Jk MRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRo ZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAhKg+T1Exac6lJk+QhH6zizCBvAYLKoZI hvcNAQkQAgsxgayggakwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0 ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQD EzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEQCEqD5P UTFpzqUmT5CEfrOLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAFUHIzQmOAEixXLk1J/lWNnbIfCmPjZBkD6X ISPHDh0T1bU6PoaUNzSQgTdF21+ZW/WSZ7n+WvHyogx4oRucHJpHPRXzCD4uJIKGkvd6pMfWqd7Q HNjuQa+jZLNkfGdzNwHswAl3YP/3NBuup8vYuW1V8zMUgrRHEj7k166EztBkilHLl0HR6GqOvmqv AB98Y/f4upaQHyZ/iufCDTW4iI3zbPXiXWBOA72cMcA9gfLHaSYi8FxZCWxGG6JicBEp1bfX2E/O kZRAHRLg1pDyNUlhqTIzEO2voZfkzKvUN4O/ozatHQfTAhq8LpMD14JDXZhDQxdhXFipd4feqgKc o/kAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-131-74968967-- From turners@ieca.com Sat Oct 19 14:19:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A2711E829A for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:19:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jGY4EwZV1vuW for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway13.websitewelcome.com (gateway13.websitewelcome.com [69.93.82.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4E911E829C for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway13.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id D77E58B28AB02; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:18:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway13.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35C58B28AA6E for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:18:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [96.231.225.44] (port=61494 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VXdvJ-0000ps-Qc; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:19:02 -0500 Message-ID: <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:19:01 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DataPacRat References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080809000506020507030902" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3286.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: (thunderfish.local) [96.231.225.44]:61494 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 6 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:19:10 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms080809000506020507030902 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi S/MIME-ers, This draft might be of interest: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boese-vcarddav-signedvcard/ On 9/10/13 7:45 AM, DataPacRat wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Ryan Hurst wrote: >>> From: DataPacRat [mailto:datapacrat@gmail.com] >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Ryan Hurst >>> wrote: >>>> On Jun 28, 2013, at 8:06 PM, DataPacRat wrote= : > >>>>> Over at vcarddav@ietf, I've started a discussion on extending the >>>>> current format to allow for cryptographically signed vCards, to all= ow >>>>> for various forms of distributed, ad-hoc identity authentication. >>>>> >>>>> Would pkix be the appropriate place to discuss the cryptographic an= d >>>>> security aspects of such signed vCards? If not, might I ask for a >>>>> recommendation of a better place for such a discussion? >> >>>> Is there a vCard format in JSON? Have you looked at JWT? >> >>> There's a WG which is writing up a spec for jCard, a JSON-based versi= on of >>> vCard. ( https://tools.ietf.org/wg/jcardcal/charters ) I'm afraid tha= t I >>> don't know enough about JWT or JSON to say whether or not they would = be good >>> solutions for the problem I'm working on. (Put >>> simply: allowing easy Bayesian analysis of the trustworthiness of suc= h >>> cards, so that everybody and their grandmother can serve as ad-hoc >>> certificate authorities, without relying on any particular third-part= ies at >>> any stage.) >>> >>> I am reasonably sure that an enhanced vCard could do the trick; and t= here's >>> at least one proposal on the drawing board which could be implemented= with >>> experimental X-type nametags immediately, without causing any disturb= ance to >>> any other vCard-based applications. I don't know whether that particu= lar >>> approach is the best one - after all, anybody can create a cryptograp= hic >>> system which is secure from themselves. So I'm hoping to evoke enough= >>> constructive criticism to be reasonably sure that any obvious holes a= re >>> plugged from the get-go. > >> Well for a jCard I would look at JWT. >> >> You should look at www.Persona.org, it is essentially a JSON based PKI= based >> on JWT; if you were to look at a Persona subscriber certificate you wo= uld >> see something that very much looks like a vCard (in JSON of course). > > I now have an Internet-Draft for the enhanced vCard spec up at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boese-vcarddav-signedvcard/ . > As currently written, it allows vCards to be used not just to announce > one's own keys, but also describe one's trust in other keys, and even > announce revocation of your keys. And all of that is part of the main > goal of the I-D: cryptographically-signed identity assertion. There > isn't much debate going on about the I-D over on the VCARDDAV mailing > list, so it seems worthwhile to check in here at PKIX to see if > anybody might care to offer constructive criticism. > > > So: how can I make current draft better? > > > Thank you for your time, > -- > DataPacRat > "Then again, I could be wrong." (no hat) 1) Pet peeve: please don't call the output of an HMAC process: OLD: containing a cryptographic signature of a text stream consisting of the properties and values listed in HASHLIST. NEW: OLD: containing the output of an HMAC algorithm whose input was=20 properties and values listed in HASHLIST and the key in HASHKEY. 2) What happens if I use S/MIME or PGP to sign the message? Can I=20 instead point to the certificate in the SignedData or the appropriate=20 PGP field? on a side note: Interesting to note that Alexey, Carl, and myself were=20 looking at a way to carry an indication of what algorithms are supported = by the clients: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-vcard-smimecaps/ spt --------------ms080809000506020507030902 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEgDCC BHwwggJkoAMCAQICCQCdWMxKNutUeTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzET MBEGA1UEChMKSUVDQSwgSW5jLjAeFw0xMzA0MDMxNDUxMThaFw0xNDA0MDMxNDUxMThaMDgx CzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpJRUNBLCBJbmMuMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtTZWFuIFR1cm5l cjCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAOpCGCRptT1m+bIpLTmbahZLZ0Qe 4X99f8SgTQ7QISvUfpmntfOD1oA1AttXlOULEERYubzvDnUTXvstFomQx0XTA67IaV+mw9OD RtG1hPN/erdKX6sU6rH4tsEbba3Drr/I0HT3YVvD3SjWtGXjF12XLvTP6+LfMIIDTCAPiEd9 KPG23D7skVu/4BvvmdLFI96OARhgwQ86M+lTIn83KRJlbbfAeIevbRx/rUB7D+uvMdWxOzR0 KZJhd6dEeTXVwBXZG4rnQ4uFM+mRSiD4rxDCyOuIuOzR07tnOyCRio6sRipOZvwQUWttdsgM Es6IxLdWsaTXcs1HjCsxrdedovMCAwEAAaOBnjCBmzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBeAwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUAHRsSeXJUmFxTVY4q2HJ8uHl+w0wGwYDVR0RBBQwEoEQVHVybmVyU0BpZWNhLmNv bTAyBgNVHR8EKzApMCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmllY2EuY29tL2NybHMvaWVjYS5jcmww FwYDVR0gBBAwDjAMBgorBgEEAYHXAAAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4ICAQAimDYm77ppTi4v K6qJSUhyvCDMGb8mngiEXEYKxsfdHPWoDO7+06j7dAZ8sDD9/FtEkiUMyoNGSUmKHR+tGper VnNiM/Zk6WwCJv8dYZwhGXNQeEGzeys/UkFv7CFX7uDSn8GQeB8sOAZ1N1hxV/TvT8qXvcRx P5+aWTAGAq3TKtCQxZjuU74L3st2hZiOhJlhjhqz0K5FIwWzXUK9uwhZe1thGUpDbRustVgm KN2Xa0pzwqI1VUO0jnWt24A4u59xo6DJQXzQVMhCx0xhpemuT9BrsBDTX8eJdI1iWv9wp3iv SrfHjKXp8y8OGD+usiG40HCjj0W9C+dH0VfbgrB6QOI4vA9+kTg4mANth1cxyxwPYOSJv0zi 1qR0eDIGI//2v2/s6TmGuNqbnRa26Ldv5gGqS7xj32Fiaby6UOXs4+aAIWGZEOH+BXjozcvE eGBwjU/VRQYu6itR28PaNhNVji4D5ITaGxWWiycqK1EUaFraWHtk7W100ROX69xTeFVZP86D 2ymi/aohl5Vb1vlYHdqlbgqjDRl9dPbTxVCXEHf+jkexcuwlLTvr7F+5DIN6c/EbCpRqQx3e dy193L48OGyRDh1/Wmzpew0VWWAWOSXGl/P9VzXf3Z6GPt7flN/V9iEJAa3Mo+w+eIdzJkHB WR+yJcqQcCRMMSyishMwLDGCAqcwggKjAgEBMC8wIjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxEzARBgNVBAoT CklFQ0EsIEluYy4CCQCdWMxKNutUeTAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBTTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTkyMTE5MDFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEW BBRMOKhfNsvAcqI0zMQA0EGsAFybCjA+BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxMTAvMCIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRMwEQYDVQQKEwpJRUNBLCBJbmMuAgkAnVjMSjbrVHkwQAYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxMaAvMCIx CzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpJRUNBLCBJbmMuAgkAnVjMSjbrVHkwbAYJKoZIhvcN AQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQMEASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3 DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQDKhh78xpym2flS8cgDNn4L+AOTj9a0yiqkNo5QrWZQlKOy543iJOhb+jJR T6hi6kS4y/5kogvkkKxMXIlOIJo1CdRJcNOnB7ErUc/mG6TFkQSdDdYXXiF9t+eqq/p+MqqG 1XVvaC7VpJRoYNlZcBUwV4qipAsMPkFRXCm4raWedVGe4Rubwnr++PV3+HYba7QUxe8Us6V3 Kgo0Rs0+1C6PfIP7LYo5zRkqS7rRt+y0dB5EPTy9eVvGl8yXy6xuM3olCNeY5+vL6aeOgmN9 uGeE1oqxq1u0L6UyqXJwQ5vMmYXDcYuVQPXbE9N5OkC6ae1ktwBYvITZpnfPHMvqtqfKAAAA AAAA --------------ms080809000506020507030902-- From datapacrat@gmail.com Sat Oct 19 14:45:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDB211E82B7 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:44:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aRHu+RM00xgg for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA7111E8296 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id cb5so2419003wib.7 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Wem4p3fyCSOGOkT6zV0LTZPuyLMkYTPLWGTjRTq266I=; b=nIxp0ZTKWW6dMFg0xesgjMi+GJliEkY3QZpRoI+IGpaC+f/vYJRFVMH551w4NYMuPZ 0Cqz0iJ42x5NmIyuLFOFFecke/oV9wPdMAODw9np8rXP6balU3YKbWAWjT6FwdeKuYe1 ADef1cPq1JV2gswZB+TSxOvWaRlnPWhJtGVEmQCtu+FH04iJecPPFQK/feUi7uxoj/A5 HaT/8JJOvhQfRwtUlmSlKinhuc0lqkix9AYO3CtF03R3M+Hz3zki+9B4+wZcO9yUdTds hVgiaTyg8aEpbutPb9Gfj8wFENMmnCeMhVihxkly3PspX+WHvzJxb78Y9O4j2GhorN2r hiiQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.93.166 with SMTP id cv6mr4092761wib.37.1382219092242; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.133.193 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:44:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: DataPacRat To: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:45:15 -0000 On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > On 9/10/13 7:45 AM, DataPacRat wrote: >> I now have an Internet-Draft for the enhanced vCard spec up at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boese-vcarddav-signedvcard/ . >> As currently written, it allows vCards to be used not just to announce >> one's own keys, but also describe one's trust in other keys, and even >> announce revocation of your keys. And all of that is part of the main >> goal of the I-D: cryptographically-signed identity assertion. There >> isn't much debate going on about the I-D over on the VCARDDAV mailing >> list, so it seems worthwhile to check in here at PKIX to see if >> anybody might care to offer constructive criticism. >> >> >> So: how can I make current draft better? > (no hat) > > 1) > > Pet peeve: please don't call the output of an HMAC process: > > OLD: containing a cryptographic signature of a text > stream consisting of the properties and values listed in HASHLIST. > > NEW: > > OLD: containing the output of an HMAC algorithm whose input was properties > and values listed in HASHLIST and the key in HASHKEY. That change is easy enough to make in the next revision of the draft. (I have another minor change pending, involving mention of calendars other than Gregorian, which isn't significant enough to warrant its own revision.) I think that I'll wait for a few days, to see if anyone offers any further feedback about this detail, before issuing the correction. > 2) What happens if I use S/MIME or PGP to sign the message? Can I instead > point to the certificate in the SignedData or the appropriate PGP field? I'm afraid that I'm not very familiar with S/MIME yet, such as what fields are included in such a message. What I can say, at the moment, is that the proposed HASHKEY field can point to any URI. IIRC, it's possible to construct a URI which points to a particular email message, identifying it with its Message-ID; I'd have to read up on that to see if there's a way to use such URIs to point to a particular part of a message, such as a header field which includes a key. (If anyone reading this already knows whether that's possible, that could save a bit of time.) If that's not feasible, but if the key itself is stored in the message in the standard format (so that, for example, a copy of PGP reading the message could extract the key), then simply pointing to the Message-ID itself may be sufficient. > on a side note: Interesting to note that Alexey, Carl, and myself were > looking at a way to carry an indication of what algorithms are supported by > the clients: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-vcard-smimecaps/ Have you gotten any support for that draft since it was last revised? Thank you for your time, -- DataPacRat "Then again, I could be wrong." From turners@ieca.com Sat Oct 19 14:53:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9293111E82BF for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.085 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jx7kP8xeDZ5E for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway01.websitewelcome.com (gateway01.websitewelcome.com [69.93.106.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C0C11E8296 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway01.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id D35E74D8AF1DB; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:53:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway01.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45034D8AF1B7 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:53:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [96.231.225.44] (port=61535 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VXeSq-0002L4-6V; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:53:40 -0500 Message-ID: <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:53:39 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DataPacRat References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020000020900090304050102" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3286.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: (thunderfish.local) [96.231.225.44]:61535 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 14 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:53:47 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms020000020900090304050102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/19/13 5:44 PM, DataPacRat wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > >> On 9/10/13 7:45 AM, DataPacRat wrote: > >>> I now have an Internet-Draft for the enhanced vCard spec up at >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boese-vcarddav-signedvcard/ . >>> As currently written, it allows vCards to be used not just to announc= e >>> one's own keys, but also describe one's trust in other keys, and even= >>> announce revocation of your keys. And all of that is part of the main= >>> goal of the I-D: cryptographically-signed identity assertion. There >>> isn't much debate going on about the I-D over on the VCARDDAV mailing= >>> list, so it seems worthwhile to check in here at PKIX to see if >>> anybody might care to offer constructive criticism. >>> >>> >>> So: how can I make current draft better? > >> (no hat) >> >> 1) >> >> Pet peeve: please don't call the output of an HMAC process: >> >> OLD: containing a cryptographic signature of a text >> stream consisting of the properties and values listed in HASHLIST. >> >> NEW: >> >> OLD: containing the output of an HMAC algorithm whose input was proper= ties >> and values listed in HASHLIST and the key in HASHKEY. > > That change is easy enough to make in the next revision of the draft. > (I have another minor change pending, involving mention of calendars > other than Gregorian, which isn't significant enough to warrant its > own revision.) I think that I'll wait for a few days, to see if anyone > offers any further feedback about this detail, before issuing the > correction. Note the submission deadline is Monday so if you don't do it Monday you=20 won't be able to submit it until Nov 4. >> 2) What happens if I use S/MIME or PGP to sign the message? Can I ins= tead >> point to the certificate in the SignedData or the appropriate PGP fiel= d? > > I'm afraid that I'm not very familiar with S/MIME yet, such as what > fields are included in such a message. What I can say, at the moment, > is that the proposed HASHKEY field can point to any URI. IIRC, it's > possible to construct a URI which points to a particular email > message, identifying it with its Message-ID; I'd have to read up on > that to see if there's a way to use such URIs to point to a particular > part of a message, such as a header field which includes a key. (If > anyone reading this already knows whether that's possible, that could > save a bit of time.) If that's not feasible, but if the key itself is > stored in the message in the standard format (so that, for example, a > copy of PGP reading the message could extract the key), then simply > pointing to the Message-ID itself may be sufficient. I honestly don't know if a URI can point to a particular place in a=20 message, but the certificiate/key needed to verify the message's=20 signature is there so it's probably something worth figuring out. I guess I'd also look at pointing to a certificate that's in an LDAP=20 directory. One question: If the key's not retrievable must we assume that the key=20 is no longer considered valid? Normally, I think this would be okay,=20 but with cached web pages isn't there a possibility that somebody could=20 get a key that the signer didn't want somebody to use? >> on a side note: Interesting to note that Alexey, Carl, and myself were= >> looking at a way to carry an indication of what algorithms are support= ed by >> the clients: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-vcard-smimecaps/ > > Have you gotten any support for that draft since it was last revised? It's been a while since I checked :) spt > Thank you for your time, > -- > DataPacRat > "Then again, I could be wrong." > --------------ms020000020900090304050102 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIEgDCC BHwwggJkoAMCAQICCQCdWMxKNutUeTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzET MBEGA1UEChMKSUVDQSwgSW5jLjAeFw0xMzA0MDMxNDUxMThaFw0xNDA0MDMxNDUxMThaMDgx CzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpJRUNBLCBJbmMuMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtTZWFuIFR1cm5l cjCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAOpCGCRptT1m+bIpLTmbahZLZ0Qe 4X99f8SgTQ7QISvUfpmntfOD1oA1AttXlOULEERYubzvDnUTXvstFomQx0XTA67IaV+mw9OD RtG1hPN/erdKX6sU6rH4tsEbba3Drr/I0HT3YVvD3SjWtGXjF12XLvTP6+LfMIIDTCAPiEd9 KPG23D7skVu/4BvvmdLFI96OARhgwQ86M+lTIn83KRJlbbfAeIevbRx/rUB7D+uvMdWxOzR0 KZJhd6dEeTXVwBXZG4rnQ4uFM+mRSiD4rxDCyOuIuOzR07tnOyCRio6sRipOZvwQUWttdsgM Es6IxLdWsaTXcs1HjCsxrdedovMCAwEAAaOBnjCBmzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBeAwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUAHRsSeXJUmFxTVY4q2HJ8uHl+w0wGwYDVR0RBBQwEoEQVHVybmVyU0BpZWNhLmNv bTAyBgNVHR8EKzApMCegJaAjhiFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmllY2EuY29tL2NybHMvaWVjYS5jcmww FwYDVR0gBBAwDjAMBgorBgEEAYHXAAAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUAA4ICAQAimDYm77ppTi4v K6qJSUhyvCDMGb8mngiEXEYKxsfdHPWoDO7+06j7dAZ8sDD9/FtEkiUMyoNGSUmKHR+tGper VnNiM/Zk6WwCJv8dYZwhGXNQeEGzeys/UkFv7CFX7uDSn8GQeB8sOAZ1N1hxV/TvT8qXvcRx P5+aWTAGAq3TKtCQxZjuU74L3st2hZiOhJlhjhqz0K5FIwWzXUK9uwhZe1thGUpDbRustVgm KN2Xa0pzwqI1VUO0jnWt24A4u59xo6DJQXzQVMhCx0xhpemuT9BrsBDTX8eJdI1iWv9wp3iv SrfHjKXp8y8OGD+usiG40HCjj0W9C+dH0VfbgrB6QOI4vA9+kTg4mANth1cxyxwPYOSJv0zi 1qR0eDIGI//2v2/s6TmGuNqbnRa26Ldv5gGqS7xj32Fiaby6UOXs4+aAIWGZEOH+BXjozcvE eGBwjU/VRQYu6itR28PaNhNVji4D5ITaGxWWiycqK1EUaFraWHtk7W100ROX69xTeFVZP86D 2ymi/aohl5Vb1vlYHdqlbgqjDRl9dPbTxVCXEHf+jkexcuwlLTvr7F+5DIN6c/EbCpRqQx3e dy193L48OGyRDh1/Wmzpew0VWWAWOSXGl/P9VzXf3Z6GPt7flN/V9iEJAa3Mo+w+eIdzJkHB WR+yJcqQcCRMMSyishMwLDGCAqcwggKjAgEBMC8wIjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxEzARBgNVBAoT CklFQ0EsIEluYy4CCQCdWMxKNutUeTAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBTTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJ KoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTkyMTUzMzlaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEW BBR0td5e3kSGExXyGHzXDEXF0tBaFzA+BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxMTAvMCIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRMwEQYDVQQKEwpJRUNBLCBJbmMuAgkAnVjMSjbrVHkwQAYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxMaAvMCIx CzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQKEwpJRUNBLCBJbmMuAgkAnVjMSjbrVHkwbAYJKoZIhvcN AQkPMV8wXTALBglghkgBZQMEASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3 DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQC+ZJuli2UBC+ARp9aLo/NF22SVUEEJu6gWrsdOo4XbnKxEVCLukeP9HRpR lCu4LPTEKSXPzHlXhZNzCOkUtcgxS7AF8mFl2yYgy8XttSuAzv151pOC4151ev0JSMOHzWvl pdDtFB6x259JsGLYfbtaUsO4oxjq2b6nR/Ds2HVFBlHvKW/o9YS/rXWX4STvDRJAuQaNQLYE pR+YXAg6jlNA2nEdOTrIfMkfbXBEODEkw+eyH6vLOUpcB4BjwY26PwzvJMlzDfO+SGbEucZ7 pcxpRYpN+SscS2uGev59IhC99eB0LJYaa93nspIIyqg4OVqKlgznMfXYQEocMiaAqb5EAAAA AAAA --------------ms020000020900090304050102-- From datapacrat@gmail.com Sat Oct 19 15:15:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C59811E82BD for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:15:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tydIBrQKKOaJ for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0ACE11E82AA for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ey11so2469015wid.7 for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:15:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LjApdvIB5EhvB13wo1ch/4sBbTkf27jFLdYu/jjmdvc=; b=VAh4Jyv8nQJpN5ZQGoE+Y0GfAa/xLI5SXAhc7RQIozh972+GH/h9EJDN3+3CJcLeOT uEt+gfCO84oyjipgiW20E6G7O62V80zndV4c1NZLHj6DgiOGhYwG2CLtsjdNdUcmXruS y+OVKgxbYIySYZwduBShjWqXCD2hxtrj3z1nPbpNX+sTval0rTniZuwlBjE0dTa+PeEa yKjs8olR632QTe6OD+OathdDP67NP5aK0jQjeffDIl1OVY5vaK+B/i0RwRO6TKK+1c7x rJkIyQqbD082YOWp7eveAAmKwkL1qer3cQz6YBJkjYBAkR/Tgjyxej7ZmCbR3B3D420p AMtQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.201.225 with SMTP id kd1mr7654010wjc.35.1382220941913; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.133.193 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:15:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:15:41 -0400 Message-ID: From: DataPacRat To: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 22:15:44 -0000 On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > On 10/19/13 5:44 PM, DataPacRat wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >>> On 9/10/13 7:45 AM, DataPacRat wrote: >>> 1) >>> >>> Pet peeve: please don't call the output of an HMAC process: >>> >>> OLD: containing a cryptographic signature of a text >>> stream consisting of the properties and values listed in HASHLIST. >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> OLD: containing the output of an HMAC algorithm whose input was >>> properties >>> and values listed in HASHLIST and the key in HASHKEY. >> >> That change is easy enough to make in the next revision of the draft. >> (I have another minor change pending, involving mention of calendars >> other than Gregorian, which isn't significant enough to warrant its >> own revision.) I think that I'll wait for a few days, to see if anyone >> offers any further feedback about this detail, before issuing the >> correction. > > Note the submission deadline is Monday so if you don't do it Monday you > won't be able to submit it until Nov 4. Fair enough. ~24 hours for comments seems a reasonable compromise. (Even though I'm not attending, I'm still trying to learn how IETF meetings work in general.) >>> 2) What happens if I use S/MIME or PGP to sign the message? Can I >>> instead >>> point to the certificate in the SignedData or the appropriate PGP field? >> >> >> I'm afraid that I'm not very familiar with S/MIME yet, such as what >> fields are included in such a message. What I can say, at the moment, >> is that the proposed HASHKEY field can point to any URI. IIRC, it's >> possible to construct a URI which points to a particular email >> message, identifying it with its Message-ID; I'd have to read up on >> that to see if there's a way to use such URIs to point to a particular >> part of a message, such as a header field which includes a key. (If >> anyone reading this already knows whether that's possible, that could >> save a bit of time.) If that's not feasible, but if the key itself is >> stored in the message in the standard format (so that, for example, a >> copy of PGP reading the message could extract the key), then simply >> pointing to the Message-ID itself may be sufficient. > > I honestly don't know if a URI can point to a particular place in a message, > but the certificiate/key needed to verify the message's signature is there > so it's probably something worth figuring out. RFC 2392 seems to be the relevant resource ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2392 ), with mid: and cid:. While I'm looking up S/MIME's format, can you tell me offhand if the encryption keys you describe are stored in separate parts, as in the examples in that RFC? If so, then it should be easy to add this to the Signed vCard as an explicit example. > I guess I'd also look at pointing to a certificate that's in an LDAP > directory. Since LDAP can be reached with ldap: URIs, there shouldn't be any problems with that. > One question: If the key's not retrievable must we assume that the key is no > longer considered valid? Normally, I think this would be okay, but with > cached web pages isn't there a possibility that somebody could get a key > that the signer didn't want somebody to use? I believe that it's probably best to leave the results of a key's failed URL lookup to the application doing the looking up, as any given app will likely have different security requirements than I might foresee and try to dictate to. (Note that with the PREF parameter, it's possible to point to multiple copies of a (hash)key at different URIs, as well as including it in the signed vCard itself, for extra redundancy, if desired. I should mention that explicitly.) >>> on a side note: Interesting to note that Alexey, Carl, and myself were >>> looking at a way to carry an indication of what algorithms are supported >>> by the clients: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-vcard-smimecaps/ >> >> Have you gotten any support for that draft since it was last revised? > > It's been a while since I checked :) Where would you check for such, if I may ask? Thank you for your time, -- DataPacRat "Then again, I could be wrong." From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Sun Oct 20 11:39:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D9511E8419 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 11:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lBhLE-5yrbFN for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 11:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BEE11E8253 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9KIdHBO029093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 20 Oct 2013 11:39:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 11:39:16 -0700 References: <20131020181242.22701.28826.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "smime@ietf.org" Message-Id: <51065F63-35DF-4B82-9184-D1C56563FBB1@vpnc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: [smime] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-housley-smime-oids-00.txt X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:39:23 -0000 Of very definite interest to this group. Begin forwarded message: > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action: draft-housley-smime-oids-00.txt > Date: October 20, 2013 11:12:42 AM PDT > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >=20 >=20 > Title : Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail = Security Working Group > Author(s) : Russ Housley > Filename : draft-housley-smime-oids-00.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2013-10-20 >=20 > Abstract: > When the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group was chartered, an object > identifier arc was donated by RSA Data Security for use by that > working group. This document describes the object identifiers that > were assigned in that donated arc, it transfers control of that arc > to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any future > assignments within that arc. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-smime-oids >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-smime-oids-00 >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > 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 >=20 From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Oct 21 06:04:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DEA11E8512; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:04:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YoO+T0gYRUYB; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AE411E82DA; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce , smime@ietf.org, saag@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.80.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20131021130340.29482.96263.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:03:40 -0700 Subject: [smime] Last Call: (Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:04:18 -0000 The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-18. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract When the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group was chartered, an object identifier arc was donated by RSA Data Security for use by that working group. This document describes the object identifiers that were assigned in that donated arc, it transfers control of that arc to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any future assignments within that arc. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-smime-oids/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-smime-oids/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Mon Oct 21 07:55:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FC211E81D2 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsoIkEFbGY1V for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5332C11E81B9 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9LEstpP062388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:54:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <20131021130340.29482.96263.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:54:56 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8F19A1B2-9A01-4192-889C-97DC6710E714@vpnc.org> References: <20131021130340.29482.96263.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "smime@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [smime] Last Call: (Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:55:02 -0000 I know there is not much energy on this mailing list these days, but it = is very important that all S/MIME implementers review this document = carefully. Aligning OIDs with reality is tricky, so please do not assume = that Russ of course got everything right on the first try. All reviews, = even "I found no problems", are appreciated. --Paul Hoffman On Oct 21, 2013, at 6:03 AM, The IESG wrote: >=20 > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to = consider > the following document: > - 'Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working = Group' > as Informational RFC >=20 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-18. Exceptionally, comments may = be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >=20 > Abstract >=20 >=20 > When the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group was chartered, an object > identifier arc was donated by RSA Data Security for use by that > working group. This document describes the object identifiers that > were assigned in that donated arc, it transfers control of that arc > to IANA, and it establishes IANA allocation policies for any future > assignments within that arc. >=20 > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-smime-oids/ From datapacrat@gmail.com Mon Oct 21 09:58:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5B811E822F for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqJI4U0ssp02 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB9211E83E4 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u57so6764916wes.4 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VG6v0hmxC8K2IbK732gTqRJyOB4gFuzOfnxLptU6zUM=; b=cm2NfWr14aqN5t+0S+kWKsiu2hV29SQSlAqzeD6CAQ7StJnpr3c09xbhaUEpCNQ/wC hI40vgoaxZIPNGkhWZgACvpCE4Ux+njkqI/3O50gvS3p1YCrRpssvXAT5nDlbfs8MlDx HfAKTuCUeyD7YVV9KhMJnlJgFn6Sl4pvZhARKPDukWfsHBLEQscqT4wJ7aVHqV1zI7d4 sc9iaoJxABDJoK0d+RcV/Dgskcj2CLGe9hy7rEYHzBYskG1/kCqBlpKq145O2nffLCHP 2mR9D5dvedindPEs+/HDqkkRLsNKiFmQMA7PMMPiHql+ZIXbVMFsb7OSgYSFOAeJDq1A eEfg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.222.2 with SMTP id qi2mr14827550wjc.14.1382374685911; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.133.193 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:58:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:58:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: DataPacRat To: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:58:37 -0000 On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > On 10/19/13 5:44 PM, DataPacRat wrote: >> (I have another minor change pending, involving mention of calendars >> other than Gregorian, which isn't significant enough to warrant its >> own revision.) I think that I'll wait for a few days, to see if anyone >> offers any further feedback about this detail, before issuing the >> correction. > > Note the submission deadline is Monday so if you don't do it Monday you > won't be able to submit it until Nov 4. I've just submitted the new draft, -03, which, as can be expected, can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boese-vcarddav-signedvcard/ . It includes at least a mention of all the topics discussed in this thread. If this draft is brought up by this group at IETF 88, I would love to know, and to offer any responses I can, before, during, or after. Thank you for your time, -- DataPacRat "Then again, I could be wrong." From dev+ietf@seantek.com Mon Oct 21 17:22:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4491B11E80E2 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id poJ60xEYEnIh for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC6E11E82D3 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [76.173.239.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43040509B5 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5265C510.5070706@seantek.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:21:36 -0700 From: Sean Leonard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: smime@ietf.org References: <20131021130340.29482.96263.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8F19A1B2-9A01-4192-889C-97DC6710E714@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <8F19A1B2-9A01-4192-889C-97DC6710E714@vpnc.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070708090203030601060400" Subject: Re: [smime] Last Call: (Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:22:36 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms070708090203030601060400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I read the draft. However, the format is not really conducive to=20 checking easily. Is there some other format (e.g., a spreadsheet) where everything is list= ed? Thanks, Sean On 10/21/2013 7:54 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I know there is not much energy on this mailing list these days, but it= is very important that all S/MIME implementers review this document care= fully. Aligning OIDs with reality is tricky, so please do not assume that= Russ of course got everything right on the first try. All reviews, even = "I found no problems", are appreciated. > > --Paul Hoffman > [SNIP] --------------ms070708090203030601060400 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKSzCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIFKTCCBBGgAwIBAgIQZ6sVlrTEYjwLaBPoxUwEaTANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMjEx MjkwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzExMjkyMzU5NTlaMCUxIzAhBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFGRlditpZXRmQHNl YW50ZWsuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAz4n20qAOzUtC1oNz 5zgTny0JRBE1mJZszV2s6EurahKPvku7E+utnLhcaNahAWr2oZgeCK9uhEqijaC4qLZHnGt/ +lnbsQtjmMJrcFCzhDZjDOJdYzmuS2cUvZqY7YwzCG6jSfs4gwNh+29MS6faY6ucncbnfO9r BB0xu5GIdI3BzsPNYnACNlBYU7w4X4GA0/MwNAabNhDgxU2Tw1fl5w1Vt+6xRTXBk6V93LyV ZN9wBIOpr2MuhoCJLHZrLirv/mbQE5ao4pkJLR/syYhS1Ko4MSiJmR3ugKPkxEo6DZkuJrfc k36hLmtMo3yuzi7hkXmDzPKkdLlNj+Xek1GWtwIDAQABo4IB5DCCAeAwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU ehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBpm5d7y8PBT6NqnIVbfNK8hbpPGMA4G A1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMCAGA1UdJQQZMBcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBgsrBgEE AbIxAQMFAjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCBSAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgwrBgEEAbIxAQIBAQEw KzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9DUFMwVwYDVR0fBFAw TjBMoEqgSIZGaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vQ09NT0RPQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb25hbmRTZWN1cmVFbWFpbENBLmNybDCBiAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfDB6MFIGCCsGAQUFBzAC hkZodHRwOi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5jb21vZG9jYS5j b20wHwYDVR0RBBgwFoEUZGV2K2lldGZAc2VhbnRlay5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEB AAY3GfgX0pLsz6qEOOG191EgYXSCpKW70wSFgSe+7AenZT88d/m8w0YtfOFVD7+94dNULDnH 4P6sD70hday7/ke4uYfgURxygemKN26KV3T7wBw8WbZSTmYJphzSoqUK5ISsQNwLaKf4yTmp Ae9IR1AjZXP3oAZvsRvpZDtiaULQ+HfFTypLDsnrA7sTtoVtirJdImGBTHsVtZ+GEQlhuuJ6 G1cInzNxIbxgnLdn4pFF82FP60SsZxaW2VRqDK7CbHJX4LUH+oJ6kp9qxF5I/RIAhRHd3lMe Xmq6vZPbnMUNhJyUC6TbYipe11+VDFPGiHZE/+y6RMSuRnepJzE4PLAxggQZMIIEFQIBATCB qDCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UE BxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9E TyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQZ6sVlrTEYjwL aBPoxUwEaTAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMjIwMDIxMzZaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBS4DL8s/1ag8H3bLHZ9 BSp1OhtJEDBsBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYI KoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqG SIb3DQMCAgEoMIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQI ExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9E TyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFu ZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEGerFZa0xGI8C2gT6MVMBGkwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGr oIGoMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYD VQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09N T0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBnqxWWtMRi PAtoE+jFTARpMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAMq8FVLXvlIZMtytGIDz6GVUGVS06+0PyrtJ CHV/Tk56fDDxj+conm+0GD+4QaC/TEi5QAqAwkSW4I9TFAq1C46o6k6e1czj9WFhJBHYS3u/ 6hQTJk10TH/+8BjcY5JFppIKKpOjgVqwdkQBSn0+IAwvmlCRFOjBcYiSzUrd39BgqG/4TfYc 3pH73tnhLpWY6StIkL9hpmGmDbgkdqYMlTOUrPkTmfilBDgoqv1UG9nq84VsOP8SbiUNoXL+ c60OlSisPMjQkbbHLbWwy6AsQ2bIssXewonNZGnPG8u73b7XiIamWAUYIBJ3eUu23OuwnRzI YMeEK61KUbo8L6dcfjgAAAAAAAA= --------------ms070708090203030601060400-- From housley@vigilsec.com Tue Oct 22 05:16:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD32711E835B for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pVEOFHcDu8Sf for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (unknown [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4600411E8373 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94D19A413D; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:16:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FUIlRbuFQ6YL; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB0A9A413E; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <5265C510.5070706@seantek.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:15:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20131021130340.29482.96263.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8F19A1B2-9A01-4192-889C-97DC6710E714@vpnc.org> <5265C510.5070706@seantek.com> To: Sean Leonard X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] Last Call: (Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:16:35 -0000 Not really. The only other format is here: = http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/sm-oid.asn Russ On Oct 21, 2013, at 8:21 PM, Sean Leonard wrote: > I read the draft. However, the format is not really conducive to = checking easily. >=20 > Is there some other format (e.g., a spreadsheet) where everything is = listed? >=20 > Thanks, Sean >=20 > On 10/21/2013 7:54 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> I know there is not much energy on this mailing list these days, but = it is very important that all S/MIME implementers review this document = carefully. Aligning OIDs with reality is tricky, so please do not assume = that Russ of course got everything right on the first try. All reviews, = even "I found no problems", are appreciated. >>=20 >> --Paul Hoffman >>=20 > [SNIP] >=20 > _______________________________________________ > smime mailing list > smime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime From WJOTTAWAY@qinetiq.com Tue Oct 22 03:20:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E8711E8259 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:20:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O9Oqo5idsGRa for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eden.qinetiq.com (eden.qinetiq.com [192.102.214.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F3511E82F8 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eden.qinetiq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4285841909 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:11:23 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at qinetiq.com Received: from eden.qinetiq.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eden.qinetiq.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id IPQ6yPgPTO18 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:11:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from tweed.uncdmz.qinetiq.com (unknown [10.0.5.57]) by eden.qinetiq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E24418E9 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:11:23 +0100 (BST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:11:11 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: uc RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3183 (3757) Thread-Index: Ac7PDwhwmxVHqpH9RCuS5uC49Ovh0A== From: "Ottaway William" To: "RFC Errata System" , "Dean Tim" , , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2013 10:11:12.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[09184E50:01CECF0F] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-6.500.1024-20234.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.031500-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-GATEWAY: Unclassified Message-Id: <20131022102001.59F3511E82F8@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:41:23 -0700 Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3183 (3757) X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:28:35 -0000 Hi all, Tim and I have discussed the proposed errata and we are happy for the cha= nge to be made. Bill William Ottaway BSc(Hons) CEng MBCS CITP Cyber Vigilance Practice Security Division BL208, QinetiQ, Malvern Technology Centre, St Andrews Road,=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Tel: +44 (0) 1684= =20894079 Malvern,=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 M= B: +44 (0) 7917 577176 Worcestershire,=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mil: 9214 801 4= 079 WR14 3PS www.QinetiQ.com/Cyber=A0=A0=A0 People Who Know How=20 Connect with us: Read our blog | Follow us on LinkedIn | Like us on FaceB= ook | Follow us on Twitter All opinions are my own -----Original Message----- From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]=20 Sent: 18 October 2013 15:44 To: Dean Tim; Ottaway William; stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; turners@ieca.co= m; paul.hoffman@vpnc.org; blaker@gmail.com Cc: housley@vigilsec.com; smime@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3183 (3757) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3183, "Domain Secur= ity Services using S/MIME". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D3183&eid=3D3757 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Russ Housley Section: 3.1.2 Original Text ------------- =20 An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of signature= . =20 This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions =20 specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message =20 containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the =20 software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used.= =20 The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: - =20 SignatureType ::=3D SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER Corrected Text -------------- =20 An S/MIME signed attribute is used to indicate the type of signature= . =20 This should be used in conjunction with the naming conventions =20 specified in the previous section. When an S/MIME signed message =20 containing the signature type attribute is received it triggers the =20 software to verify that the correct naming convention has been used.= =20 The following object identifier identifies the SignatureType =20 attribute: =20 id-aa-signatureType OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1)=20 =20 member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 28 } =20 The ASN.1 [4] notation of this attribute is: =20 SignatureType ::=3D SEQUENCE OF OBJECT IDENTIFIER Notes ----- The specification provides the syntax for the SignatureType attribute, bu= t it fails to provide the object identifier for the attribute. The objec= t identifier was assigned, but for some reason it is not provided in the = document. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "= Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a d= ecision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the s= tatus and edit the report, if necessary.=20 -------------------------------------- RFC3183 (draft-ietf-smime-domsec-09) -------------------------------------- Title : Domain Security Services using S/MIME Publication Date : October 2001 Author(s) : T. Dean, W. Ottaway Category : EXPERIMENTAL Source : S/MIME Mail Security Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is=20 addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor=20 copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you=20 believe you have received this email in error. QinetiQ may=20 monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for=20 the purposes of security. QinetiQ Limited (Registered in England & Wales: Company Number: 3796233) Registered office: Cody Technology=20 Park, Ively Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX http://www.qinetiq.co= m. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Tue Oct 22 08:44:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E22811E84A8 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:44:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Z9Ta-cnhXVf for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68F111E81B3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9MFhplQ025708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:43:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:43:50 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <95B2C69F-A985-491E-84C9-ADD6182EF905@vpnc.org> References: <20131021130340.29482.96263.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8F19A1B2-9A01-4192-889C-97DC6710E714@vpnc.org> <5265C510.5070706@seantek.com> To: Sean Leonard X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] Last Call: (Object Identifier Registry for the S/MIME Mail Security Working Group) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:44:02 -0000 On Oct 22, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > Not really. The only other format is here: = http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/sm-oid.asn But I wouldn't trust that the data from sm-oid.asn was necessarily = copied correctly. Everyone: please review the draft as carefully as = possible. Getting the IANA registry wrong, even in a small way, when it = is constructed can lead to interop problems. --Paul Hoffman= From ietf@augustcellars.com Tue Oct 22 13:00:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A0C11E8237 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvt-E5sQ7JJY for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B3E11E8280 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (173-8-216-38-Oregon.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.8.216.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 499AE2CA25; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:59:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'DataPacRat'" References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:57:51 -0700 Message-ID: <025201cecf60$ff60d830$fe228890$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQH/t6SZxVTwIxMeiG6bYe5QvT8GYQJgcDv1AghY8ekCTos8ogJBozqFAazXio4CKbqSdAK2HCawAZ5Ql+OZFjJwoA== Content-Language: en-us Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:00:45 -0000 I may be missing something, but I do not see how using a MAC function is going to provide any degree of security in this case. The basic presumption of using a MAC function is that the secret is known only to two people. The generator and the consumer. If it is known to multiple people, especially if it is advertised in a URL, then a new MAC value can be created by anybody that can get the secret value and a new vcard substituted. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of DataPacRat > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 9:58 AM > To: Sean Turner > Cc: smime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > On 10/19/13 5:44 PM, DataPacRat wrote: > > >> (I have another minor change pending, involving mention of calendars > >> other than Gregorian, which isn't significant enough to warrant its > >> own revision.) I think that I'll wait for a few days, to see if > >> anyone offers any further feedback about this detail, before issuing > >> the correction. > > > > Note the submission deadline is Monday so if you don't do it Monday > > you won't be able to submit it until Nov 4. > > I've just submitted the new draft, -03, which, as can be expected, can be > found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boese-vcarddav-signedvcard/ > . It includes at least a mention of all the topics discussed in this thread. > > If this draft is brought up by this group at IETF 88, I would love to know, and > to offer any responses I can, before, during, or after. > > > > Thank you for your time, > -- > DataPacRat > "Then again, I could be wrong." > _______________________________________________ > smime mailing list > smime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime From datapacrat@gmail.com Tue Oct 22 13:20:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A22611E8250 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FSz03BwrZn7Y for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C703A11E824A for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hn9so6411975wib.5 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LLW6U2Nu+1a6IW3733M0WCOuIH6/KgzMZ+7VNCH1OOU=; b=gN5UD0sR8oyCUpMWA5tH1YY7uTQW7BdHa+zwk0mIsd0wPtxoQCG3c/mKyZdqf3C2gV hUK2FWuIU9l/gxhmpVgyoLmQ9EQGAJagNmHwJ2SHO89FWWQBkZgHUWgTkFdl/3w6Zcxx EezUnIPbI2YKqCNWmgNulpmwMlU3udwIWAnbH1T5+So0JXVI/0L4QxRX2+xNvj5Me+5r LDVOGsmT/PD24ZRUv5R8rswEe8u3H7dZN/paRElXyiTEitF871f4INbKJSTQvpwBJteY JMYVrFde9I6PfR5w8VrMPF8A/cevMXhQ2RiYVum7zZC3Z/pyahaUgaBB6ddZImiXoQbN MzzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.20.170 with SMTP id o10mr20170122wje.4.1382473211010; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.133.193 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <025201cecf60$ff60d830$fe228890$@augustcellars.com> References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> <025201cecf60$ff60d830$fe228890$@augustcellars.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:20:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: DataPacRat To: Jim Schaad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:20:12 -0000 On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > I may be missing something, but I do not see how using a MAC function is > going to provide any degree of security in this case. > > The basic presumption of using a MAC function is that the secret is known > only to two people. The generator and the consumer. If it is known to > multiple people, especially if it is advertised in a URL, then a new MAC > value can be created by anybody that can get the secret value and a new > vcard substituted. >From Sean Turner's suggestion, I assumed that 'output of a HMAC' was effectively a synonym for 'the authentication hash generated by the relevant key's algorithm'. If that's not the case, such as only applying to email rather than encryption in general, then that change may need to be changed. Thank you for your time, -- DataPacRat "Then again, I could be wrong." From ietf@augustcellars.com Tue Oct 22 15:48:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0A911E82AA for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.953 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.554, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJp76cObUP08 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CE811E82A4 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C4BA2CA24; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:48:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'DataPacRat'" References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> <025201cecf60$ff60d830$fe228890$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:46:53 -0700 Message-ID: <001101cecf78$9d1cd260$d7567720$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQH/t6SZxVTwIxMeiG6bYe5QvT8GYQJgcDv1AghY8ekCTos8ogJBozqFAazXio4CKbqSdAK2HCawAZ5Ql+MB1zWZVgFQGJPXmP0nS9A= Content-Language: en-us Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:48:48 -0000 Y = MAC(message, KeySymmetric) Sig = Sign(message, KeyPrivate) Both generate an output that can be verified. In the case of a signature algorithm, the recipient uses a public key to verify the signature. In the case of a MAC algorithm, the recipient uses the same symmetric key for verification as was used for creation. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: smime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:smime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of DataPacRat > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:20 PM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: smime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jim Schaad > wrote: > > I may be missing something, but I do not see how using a MAC function > > is going to provide any degree of security in this case. > > > > The basic presumption of using a MAC function is that the secret is > > known only to two people. The generator and the consumer. If it is > > known to multiple people, especially if it is advertised in a URL, > > then a new MAC value can be created by anybody that can get the secret > > value and a new vcard substituted. > > From Sean Turner's suggestion, I assumed that 'output of a HMAC' was > effectively a synonym for 'the authentication hash generated by the relevant > key's algorithm'. If that's not the case, such as only applying to email rather > than encryption in general, then that change may need to be changed. > > > Thank you for your time, > -- > DataPacRat > "Then again, I could be wrong." > _______________________________________________ > smime mailing list > smime@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime From ietf@augustcellars.com Tue Oct 22 15:52:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD1E11E82C8 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:52:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qH6ORKDbVH5j for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C18411E8291 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56BD32CA11; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Russ Housley'" , "'Sean Turner'" Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:50:37 -0700 Message-ID: <001201cecf79$2080afa0$61820ee0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac7PYfrg/D13itk8Q12rx+agaduOpA== Content-Language: en-us Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: [smime] Review on S/MIME OIDs X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:52:02 -0000 Russ, Here are some review comments as part of doing the Shepard Write-up. 1. The ASN1-97 reference should be updated to the latest version. I currently have these as 11/2008. 2. The root of the arc should be id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) } (addition of a name for the last number in the list) 3. In section 3.2, I am not sure that I understand what the description field is supposed to indicate. I expect this to be a descriptive field, and thus not need the hyphens. I would also expect that the table should probably include the tag that is used for the field when it exists in an ASN.1 file. Thus it would be 0 Module Identifiers mod [This RFC] 4. There is a naming philoshpy change that occurred part of the way through our use of the arc This means that the string id-mod-domsec does not appear in RFC 3274, instead it simply uses domsec for the assigned name of the arc. Should this document be using the same names as are in the actual ASN.1 modules or should we be using the new strings that do not appear in the modules. 5. Should we publish the current ASN.1 module as an informational appendix? It might be useful for people to look at Jim From datapacrat@gmail.com Tue Oct 22 16:01:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B1211E828E for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0F4DCu10gCz for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D89E11E82A3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hm4so6496554wib.8 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ixFC0cTnxtcATbVedb/vJwKIaeR4VoBYiRHsRVYxxzk=; b=TudQq1oKN3rjPkubp8Ww6jR9Byw6C5a88FwOUIlTL9PnL0irD7xSl1bI5vxlasb3hp 5xAfRGyBkSesJCw5/O+BjjAzxVREQJUHF6jvYkb4uwWkQE02FKqvi5Rm/nbSFYUMLavX wyx1Pm5J41g+5YkEuEs9qxg07hv8FDT3rNvZ+8jpLkRhp17Q5OGI3gf4tUrwCsLO3d78 NHoEDFMBV5GTues0b1XgO8uv/k4MMZA/g19WN73VnRm5Cbbt7VSABOXBdByymQRgowGt w9I6OCWu8pqzt1vDGXj/R43luhl2Pdm/s6SMJ9fIPXFTJvFker4E9do7b9UJ4ovWO8eh 34qQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.9.70 with SMTP id x6mr20358472wja.22.1382482876227; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.133.193 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:01:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <001101cecf78$9d1cd260$d7567720$@augustcellars.com> References: <00f701ce746f$d7444310$85ccc930$@globalsign.com> <5262F745.2050007@ieca.com> <5262FF63.5070406@ieca.com> <025201cecf60$ff60d830$fe228890$@augustcellars.com> <001101cecf78$9d1cd260$d7567720$@augustcellars.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 19:01:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: DataPacRat To: Jim Schaad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] [pkix] Initial inquiry: Signed vCards X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:01:19 -0000 On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > Y = MAC(message, KeySymmetric) > > Sig = Sign(message, KeyPrivate) > > Both generate an output that can be verified. In the case of a signature > algorithm, the recipient uses a public key to verify the signature. In the > case of a MAC algorithm, the recipient uses the same symmetric key for > verification as was used for creation. The Signed vCard format is agnostic about what sorts of keys should be used for generating the HASH value - private, public, or symmetric keys are all permitted. It seems like a bit of rephrasing of the Description in section 4.4 of the draft is in order, in order to make that clear. Are there any keywords which are clearly neutral about types of keys and hashes, which would be worth including? Thank you for your time, -- DataPacRat "Then again, I could be wrong." From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Oct 23 07:43:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA47511E8421 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.481 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R91w8UxcYyf5 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (unknown [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB8911E838A for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A94D9A4158; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:42:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXJ4KhG40cAR; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from v150.vpn.iad.rg.net (v150.vpn.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DA59A415C; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <001201cecf79$2080afa0$61820ee0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:42:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3A4ABDD5-0597-4341-BEE9-D2642BA5BE47@vigilsec.com> References: <001201cecf79$2080afa0$61820ee0$@augustcellars.com> To: Jim Schaad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] Review on S/MIME OIDs X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:43:00 -0000 Jim: > Here are some review comments as part of doing the Shepard Write-up. >=20 > 1. The ASN1-97 reference should be updated to the latest version. I > currently have these as 11/2008. Isn't that ASN1-08? I chose to reference the two incompatible versions of the syntax. > 2. The root of the arc should be >=20 > id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { iso(1) member-body(2) > us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) } >=20 > (addition of a name for the last number in the list) Doing this would define two labels, smime and id-smime. > 3. In section 3.2, I am not sure that I understand what the = description > field is supposed to indicate. I expect this to be a descriptive = field, and > thus not need the hyphens. I would also expect that the table should > probably include the tag that is used for the field when it exists in = an > ASN.1 file. Thus it would be >=20 > 0 Module Identifiers mod [This RFC] I'm fine with removing the hyphens. I do not see the value in the "mod" = column. It is just a convention that I used to help me manage the OID = registry. > 4. There is a naming philoshpy change that occurred part of the way = through > our use of the arc This means that the string id-mod-domsec does not = appear > in RFC 3274, instead it simply uses domsec for the assigned name of = the arc. > Should this document be using the same names as are in the actual = ASN.1 > modules or should we be using the new strings that do not appear in = the > modules. There was no change in the convention. Some RFCs use a module name = other than the object identifier. I do not see that as a problem. > 5. Should we publish the current ASN.1 module as an informational = appendix? Subsequent additions to the registry would make the module incomplete. = So, the value would be fleeting. Russ From ietf@augustcellars.com Wed Oct 23 09:44:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1438B11E81BE for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ww7Ja4TvXFyS for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCF211E8414 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CED82CA20; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Russ Housley'" References: <001201cecf79$2080afa0$61820ee0$@augustcellars.com> <3A4ABDD5-0597-4341-BEE9-D2642BA5BE47@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <3A4ABDD5-0597-4341-BEE9-D2642BA5BE47@vigilsec.com> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:42:42 -0700 Message-ID: <00de01ced00e$e5078d40$af16a7c0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQE9OrZDMCvsNFvNfTsBNXkFQTlaigGQ0oKkmxkcIFA= Content-Language: en-us Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] Review on S/MIME OIDs X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:44:11 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 7:42 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: 'Sean Turner'; smime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Review on S/MIME OIDs > > Jim: > > > Here are some review comments as part of doing the Shepard Write-up. > > > > 1. The ASN1-97 reference should be updated to the latest version. I > > currently have these as 11/2008. > > Isn't that ASN1-08? > > I chose to reference the two incompatible versions of the syntax. And I agree that you should. I think you should reference ASN1-88 and ASN1-08. You currently have 88 and 97. While I agree that 97 and 08 are basically compatible, it makes sense to use the latest version. > > > 2. The root of the arc should be > > > > id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) > > us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) } > > > > (addition of a name for the last number in the list) > > Doing this would define two labels, smime and id-smime. No this does not define two labels. The label inside of the object identifier is not in the same namespace as the one on the left hand side. > > > 3. In section 3.2, I am not sure that I understand what the > > description field is supposed to indicate. I expect this to be a > > descriptive field, and thus not need the hyphens. I would also expect > > that the table should probably include the tag that is used for the > > field when it exists in an > > ASN.1 file. Thus it would be > > > > 0 Module Identifiers mod [This RFC] > > I'm fine with removing the hyphens. I do not see the value in the "mod" > column. It is just a convention that I used to help me manage the OID > registry. Again, there are two names, the name of the module which does not need to be in this table because we don't need to register that and the name in the OID arc which is a different name space and should be part of this registration table. > > > 4. There is a naming philoshpy change that occurred part of the way > > through our use of the arc This means that the string id-mod-domsec > > does not appear in RFC 3274, instead it simply uses domsec for the > assigned name of the arc. > > Should this document be using the same names as are in the actual > > ASN.1 modules or should we be using the new strings that do not appear > > in the modules. > > There was no change in the convention. Some RFCs use a module name > other than the object identifier. I do not see that as a problem. Again, I am looking at the name in the oid arc and not the name of the module. Different namespaces. > > > 5. Should we publish the current ASN.1 module as an informational > appendix? > > Subsequent additions to the registry would make the module incomplete. > So, the value would be fleeting. True, but it might be useful short term. I don't have any drastic need to do this. It would just be useful for checking things. Jim > > Russ From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Wed Oct 30 07:39:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE3B21E80F9; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:39:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HOzBzmbvB-dw; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36E521E80F1; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E0BBE5C; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:38:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7pfOS+ln-BH; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:38:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC477BE63; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:38:55 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <527119FF.9070009@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:38:55 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "saag@ietf.org" , smime@ietf.org References: <522509AC.6040907@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <522509AC.6040907@cs.tcd.ie> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [smime] [saag] some s/mime related drafts I've been asked to AD sponsor X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:39:43 -0000 Hiya, So I've not seen any negative feedback on these so you should see last calls issuing for 'em shortly. S On 09/02/2013 10:57 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Folks, > > Sean, Russ and Jim have authored three s/mime related drafts [1,2,3] > and asked me to sponsor them for publication. I've read them and > they seem like reasonable additions to the set of s/mime RFCs to > me, but I'd like to check that nobody has any issue with that > before starting IETF LC in a week or so. > > I'd specifically be interested in hearing from anyone who'd > likely implement these. I'll send my own comments (which are > minor) during the IETF LC. > > Thanks, > S. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-turner-application-cms-media-type > [2] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error > [3] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-turner-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-algs > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 30 08:44:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFF811E8258 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mGZa5mA0T3Se for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FD321E80B4 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9UFgKBm071862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:42:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:42:59 -0700 References: <20131030150659.6951.27999.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: smime@ietf.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Subject: [smime] Fwd: Last Call: (Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Key Package Receipt and Error Content Types) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:44:55 -0000 Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Subject: Last Call: = (Cryptographic = Message Syntax (CMS) Key Package Receipt and Error Content Types) to = Proposed Standard > Date: October 30, 2013 at 8:06:59 AM PDT > To: IETF-Announce > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to = consider > the following document: > - 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Key Package Receipt and Error > Content Types' > as Proposed > Standard >=20 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may = be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >=20 > Abstract >=20 >=20 > This document defines the syntax for two Cryptographic Message = Syntax > (CMS) content types, one for key package receipts, and another for > key package errors. The key package receipt content type is used to > confirm receipt of an identified key package or collection of key > packages. The key package error content type is used to indicate an > error occurred during the processing of a key package. CMS can be > used to digitally sign, digest, authenticate, or encrypt these > content types. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The file can be obtained via > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-erro= r/ >=20 > IESG discussion can be tracked via > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-erro= r/ballot/ >=20 > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >=20 > The document has the following downrefs: >=20 > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: > draft-turner-application-cms-media-type (ref. 'MEDIA') >=20 > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5912 >=20 > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6268 >=20 From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 30 08:44:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FABA21E8113 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZcCmJ9YUaC7F for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D63B21E811B for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9UFgKBo071862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:29 -0700 References: <20131030151709.6951.76036.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: smime@ietf.org Message-Id: <1B46318F-7DE4-4688-A838-D45D14712321@vpnc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Subject: [smime] Fwd: Last Call: (Algorithms for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Key Package Receipt and Error Content Types) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:44:59 -0000 Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Subject: Last Call: = (Algorithms for = Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Key Package Receipt and Error Content = Types) to Proposed Standard > Date: October 30, 2013 at 8:17:09 AM PDT > To: IETF-Announce > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to = consider > the following document: > - 'Algorithms for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Key Package = Receipt > and Error Content Types' > as Proposed > Standard >=20 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may = be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >=20 > Abstract >=20 >=20 > This document describes the conventions for using several > cryptographic algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) > key package receipt and error content types. Specifically, it > includes conventions necessary to implement SignedData, > EnvelopedData, EncryptedData, and AuthEnvelopedData. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The file can be obtained via > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error= -algs/ >=20 > IESG discussion can be tracked via > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error= -algs/ballot/ >=20 >=20 > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >=20 > The document has the following downrefs: >=20 >=20 > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3394 >=20 > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5753 >=20 > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6090 >=20 >=20 From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 30 08:45:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337C321E812A for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:45:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iEycuR08rxYC for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA9B21E8121 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9UFgKBn071862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:43:14 -0700 References: <20131030151643.6969.94470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: smime@ietf.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Subject: [smime] Fwd: Last Call: (The application/cms media type) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:45:10 -0000 Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Subject: Last Call: = (The application/cms media type) to Informational RFC > Date: October 30, 2013 at 8:16:43 AM PDT > To: IETF-Announce > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to = consider > the following document: > - 'The application/cms media type' > as Informational RFC >=20 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may = be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >=20 > Abstract >=20 >=20 > This document registers the application/cms media types for use with > the corresponding CMS (Cryptographic Message Syntax) content types. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The file can be obtained via > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-application-cms-media-type/ >=20 > IESG discussion can be tracked via > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-application-cms-media-type/ba= llot/ >=20 >=20 > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >=20 >=20 From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Oct 31 06:44:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68B311E811A; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:44:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.452 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fLCjbFvTXFK2; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B5211E832F; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:44:37 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce , smime@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.81 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20131031134437.5729.87395.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:44:37 -0700 Subject: [smime] Last Call: (Creation of a registry for smime-type parameter values) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:44:49 -0000 The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Creation of a registry for smime-type parameter values' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-28. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) defined the Content-Type parameter "smime-type". As the list of defined values for that parameter has increased, it has become clear that a registry is needed to document those values. This document creates that registry, registers the current values, and specifies the policies for registration of new values. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-smime-type-registry/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-smime-type-registry/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From dev+ietf@seantek.com Thu Oct 31 21:31:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D7C11E81FD; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:31:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOICdnewWAc3; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEA721E80A6; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [76.173.239.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5ACCC509B5; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 00:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <52732E6D.3000409@seantek.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:30:37 -0700 From: Sean Leonard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: smime@ietf.org, "pkix@ietf.org" , saag@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050608020504040403020808" Subject: [smime] New Version for PKIX Textual (02) X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 04:31:24 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms050608020504040403020808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings S/MIME, PKIX, and SAAG lists: A revised draft of PKIX text encodings has been published. The changes=20 are largely editorial rather than technical. However, the ABNF has been=20 beefed up to include stricter and more accurate encoding rules. Please provide any additional comments before we move it to the next=20 phases of publication. Kind regards, Sean Leonard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for=20 draft-josefsson-pkix-textual-02.txt Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:24:56 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Simon Josefsson , Sean Leonard A new version of I-D, draft-josefsson-pkix-textual-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Simon Josefsson and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-josefsson-pkix-textual Revision: 02 Title: Text Encodings of PKIX and CMS Structures Creation date: 2013-10-22 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 14 URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-pkix-textual-02.t= xt Status:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-josefsson-pkix-textual Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-josefsson-pkix-textual-02 Diff:http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-josefsson-pkix-textual-02 Abstract: This document describes and discuss the text encodings of Public-Key= Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates, PKIX Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), PKCS #10 Certification Request Syntax, PKCS= #7 structures, Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS), PKCS #8 Private- Key Information Syntax, and Attribute Certificates. The text encodings are well-known, are implemented by several applications an= d libraries, and are widely deployed. This document is intended to articulate the de-facto rules that existing implementations operate by, and to give recommendations that will promote interoperability going forward. --------------ms050608020504040403020808 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKSzCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIFKTCCBBGgAwIBAgIQZ6sVlrTEYjwLaBPoxUwEaTANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMjEx MjkwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzExMjkyMzU5NTlaMCUxIzAhBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFGRlditpZXRmQHNl YW50ZWsuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAz4n20qAOzUtC1oNz 5zgTny0JRBE1mJZszV2s6EurahKPvku7E+utnLhcaNahAWr2oZgeCK9uhEqijaC4qLZHnGt/ +lnbsQtjmMJrcFCzhDZjDOJdYzmuS2cUvZqY7YwzCG6jSfs4gwNh+29MS6faY6ucncbnfO9r BB0xu5GIdI3BzsPNYnACNlBYU7w4X4GA0/MwNAabNhDgxU2Tw1fl5w1Vt+6xRTXBk6V93LyV ZN9wBIOpr2MuhoCJLHZrLirv/mbQE5ao4pkJLR/syYhS1Ko4MSiJmR3ugKPkxEo6DZkuJrfc k36hLmtMo3yuzi7hkXmDzPKkdLlNj+Xek1GWtwIDAQABo4IB5DCCAeAwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU ehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBpm5d7y8PBT6NqnIVbfNK8hbpPGMA4G A1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMCAGA1UdJQQZMBcGCCsGAQUFBwMEBgsrBgEE AbIxAQMFAjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCBSAwRgYDVR0gBD8wPTA7BgwrBgEEAbIxAQIBAQEw KzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLm5ldC9DUFMwVwYDVR0fBFAw TjBMoEqgSIZGaHR0cDovL2NybC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20vQ09NT0RPQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb25hbmRTZWN1cmVFbWFpbENBLmNybDCBiAYIKwYBBQUHAQEEfDB6MFIGCCsGAQUFBzAC hkZodHRwOi8vY3J0LmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5jb21vZG9jYS5j b20wHwYDVR0RBBgwFoEUZGV2K2lldGZAc2VhbnRlay5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEB AAY3GfgX0pLsz6qEOOG191EgYXSCpKW70wSFgSe+7AenZT88d/m8w0YtfOFVD7+94dNULDnH 4P6sD70hday7/ke4uYfgURxygemKN26KV3T7wBw8WbZSTmYJphzSoqUK5ISsQNwLaKf4yTmp Ae9IR1AjZXP3oAZvsRvpZDtiaULQ+HfFTypLDsnrA7sTtoVtirJdImGBTHsVtZ+GEQlhuuJ6 G1cInzNxIbxgnLdn4pFF82FP60SsZxaW2VRqDK7CbHJX4LUH+oJ6kp9qxF5I/RIAhRHd3lMe Xmq6vZPbnMUNhJyUC6TbYipe11+VDFPGiHZE/+y6RMSuRnepJzE4PLAxggQZMIIEFQIBATCB qDCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UE BxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9E TyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQZ6sVlrTEYjwL aBPoxUwEaTAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzExMDEwNDMwMzdaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSFs8vL7htHdDC03lwX yxnektIghTBsBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYI KoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqG SIb3DQMCAgEoMIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQI ExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9E TyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFu ZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEGerFZa0xGI8C2gT6MVMBGkwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGr oIGoMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYD VQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09N T0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBnqxWWtMRi PAtoE+jFTARpMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAE/frMlqdxe/10uzmtQ5Wr0B9qw94bcWGjKK K3Wrixjsh/rbZHdiNipRUJfpnr8t+2J62B3J16zEApVLf1yJm+MTni1o7XMhL2xVFFs+1zcs 9haaxtwTWi/HPxmTXAr3ytu7v79bVl80esSPFznUPmKQjy3zN38JT/zt70EiTNlvs23imgEZ csKPLCqYffshrtqnjVq8I1VPLUdGUcy0DXJEzpCZxF2RKsOqEr0O219hOJFixv+PIad+DNtU 3Ch3QbMn6ZaYEwuUJVMMD5EU/7lyDel/AEmmxUIHi2JFiIN3z6mSt4m28OgM3sUt0udDrbTN ip2Vd9ydWG8d1hDF+isAAAAAAAA= --------------ms050608020504040403020808--