From nobody Wed Apr 1 11:16:20 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8621A1BC6 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:16:19 -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=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8nZ7mBI_pIL4 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69A921A1A69 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbgh1 with SMTP id gh1so86916340obb.1 for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:16:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ue3INsNh2jBMcewe65JAC1hZ8jgTMaIdg9aQZ+zhQjA=; b=CeCWqNGx2dwgAei4VBRzZsn7G5dciEcnaPF+VjTpiVQdNzgbCZB1QXDu0Fsb80y68B 1IZz+3VSXt4i3z60TBmKZTLCBbNffEdX3Pn2m9FL3sjoKmPEcq04PfT5YdWTAZCYrWeX bDks5L+kWDVhaQhi6dHr/BZvEUONEKEjcUUqPbhMFh+MZ/CcG72T6fAfhKYS8cCny4Yt 44pzJI8PaDbR7HfjWVXnA7SjO8UA/iOxmITETT2S/cGtAI2qceS29yLsp2/VC8XaxCjq RXiv32aBWdVTuqtavV048NWr5fpc2DNI3ohbtNlEJCxFY8Ukb0C4jNE9x5+uEvIMbCfZ jN+w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.128.199 with SMTP id nq7mr42289838obb.47.1427912176356; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:16:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: smime@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:16:19 -0000 It was suggested by Paul that I seek feedback on this work here. Here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-encryption-encoding Updated, not submitted, version: https://github.com/mnot/I-D/blob/master/http-encryption-encoding/draft.md It doesn't have any ASN.1 or OIDs, sorry. And no prizes for finding the bug in the published version. From nobody Wed Apr 1 14:12:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4704D1A92E3 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:12:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBhta1nMf-QM for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DEB71A90B9 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-51-95.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t31LCDxq056708 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:12:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-51-95.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.95] claimed to be [10.20.30.101] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:12:13 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> References: To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:12:17 -0000 On Apr 1, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Martin Thomson = wrote: >=20 > It was suggested by Paul that I seek feedback on this work here. >=20 > Here: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-encryption-encoding >=20 > Updated, not submitted, version: > = https://github.com/mnot/I-D/blob/master/http-encryption-encoding/draft.md >=20 > It doesn't have any ASN.1 or OIDs, sorry. And no prizes for finding > the bug in the published version. In particular, I think that CMS encrypted types might be useful here to = give them more flexibility than what they have now, and so they don't = eventually have to reinvent a bunch of CMS. It also might be overkill. = Thoughts? --Paul Hoffman= From nobody Wed Apr 1 15:03:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D6E1A03FF for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:03:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=1.675, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yweci_raAzOH for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway09.websitewelcome.com (gateway09.websitewelcome.com [70.85.130.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DB551A9076 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway09.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 507) id 7BA6A6E1BA6FC; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:03:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway09.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC7F6E1BA6DE for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:03:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [96.231.227.6] (port=53615 helo=192.168.1.10) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YdQjW-0006AF-Pm; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:03:34 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:03:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) 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-IP: 96.231.227.6 X-Exim-ID: 1YdQjW-0006AF-Pm X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: (192.168.1.10) [96.231.227.6]:53615 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Archived-At: Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:03:37 -0000 On Apr 01, 2015, at 17:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Apr 1, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Martin Thomson = wrote: >>=20 >> It was suggested by Paul that I seek feedback on this work here. >>=20 >> Here: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-encryption-encoding >>=20 >> Updated, not submitted, version: >> = https://github.com/mnot/I-D/blob/master/http-encryption-encoding/draft.md >>=20 >> It doesn't have any ASN.1 or OIDs, sorry. And no prizes for finding >> the bug in the published version. >=20 > In particular, I think that CMS encrypted types might be useful here = to give them more flexibility than what they have now, and so they don't = eventually have to reinvent a bunch of CMS. It also might be overkill. = Thoughts? There=92s also these media type registrations but it definitely assumes = CMS: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7193/?include_text=3D1 But isn=92t this kind of re-inventing some parts of S-HTTP ;) http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2660/?include_text=3D1 spt= From nobody Wed Apr 1 15:31:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901C81A8823 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vq83VWroHGaw for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0B0D1A87DE for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-51-95.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t31MV3cK061105 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:31:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-51-95.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.95] claimed to be [10.20.30.101] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:31:01 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> To: Sean Turner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:31:11 -0000 On Apr 1, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > There=92s also these media type registrations but it definitely = assumes CMS: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7193/?include_text=3D1 >=20 > But isn=92t this kind of re-inventing some parts of S-HTTP ;) > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2660/?include_text=3D1 I don't care if they're re-doing SHTTP; that's their call, not ours. My = concern is them possibly badly creating an enveloped object. If = envelopedData works well for them, great; if not, let's be sure to help = them avoid pitfalls. --Paul Hoffman= From nobody Wed Apr 1 15:44:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD3E1A92AC for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:44:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=1.675, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5hfNDl3JciTT for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway24.websitewelcome.com (gateway24.websitewelcome.com [192.185.50.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5329F1A8834 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway24.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD757B6746A25 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:44:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [96.231.227.6] (port=54062 helo=192.168.1.10) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YdRNC-0006dh-Rc; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:44:34 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:44:34 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E7EAF3F-A7CF-4202-80AF-0BAE9797706F@ieca.com> References: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) 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-IP: 96.231.227.6 X-Exim-ID: 1YdRNC-0006dh-Rc X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: (192.168.1.10) [96.231.227.6]:54062 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 10 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Archived-At: Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:44:37 -0000 On Apr 01, 2015, at 18:31, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Apr 1, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >> There=92s also these media type registrations but it definitely = assumes CMS: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7193/?include_text=3D1 >>=20 >> But isn=92t this kind of re-inventing some parts of S-HTTP ;) >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2660/?include_text=3D1 >=20 > I don't care if they're re-doing SHTTP; that's their call, not ours. = My concern is them possibly badly creating an enveloped object. If = envelopedData works well for them, great; if not, let's be sure to help = them avoid pitfalls. I agree not sure how you=92d draw any other conclusion from my message. spt= From nobody Wed Apr 1 16:43:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177DA1ACD75 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:43:27 -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=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vmiTTucWwgpk for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B45D11ACD74 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbec2 with SMTP id ec2so103672873obb.3 for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:43:25 -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=z+zooRTz6c1qgaUugsW7aBb0UJtNhxrfHoB3BCObFTI=; b=vTK709E+QS2z6udymmgJLslCSyUhDIQa1Xodhc4cDquXOaVialazlrLt9rUMZKVfAU gd2oqRHtTIJ9hPzJniV+2U3DjCfikPg4pfpW4sCcZSACs9IHBedFcfJ71MdEX0YGXVX7 XGlnLAxagaNCExfDcqz53IEYoHP6QFS/MLLVBH2aF73UR4h+QX4QVSiOXcQM7Z4stNUY Re0YjmSvGmWOAAmDO9ZD80wLwRo5us0TtHNTfD73226wqY1GupLYCoRzqYWuO/vbWo1X 3K7hRFoNDJOoXKNixubU62UC9aXfSyi6WAz6ZauXk325PC+36hTle6qHKPpRxJOMGsoj Ib2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.210.197 with SMTP id mw5mr43925908obc.26.1427931805237; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> References: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:43:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: smime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 23:43:27 -0000 On 1 April 2015 at 14:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: > In particular, I think that CMS encrypted types might be useful here to give them more flexibility than what they have now, and so they don't eventually have to reinvent a bunch of CMS. It also might be overkill. Thoughts? It was an explicit goal to NOT have flexibility in addition to what is provided by content-encoding negotiation. That is, if chacha20-poly1305 was considered categorically better, a new content-encoding would be needed and support for it negotiated using the mechanisms that HTTP provides. > If envelopedData works well for them, great; if not, let's be sure to help them avoid pitfalls. When I looked at this, it was not apparent that CMS was capable of supporting the streaming use case. That meant defining new algorithms and OIDs for an algorithm that did support that. From nobody Thu Apr 2 08:13:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076B51B2CF5 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSz6YkSXj8BS for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F3C1AC427 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08F79A4029; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:12:55 -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 Wn2lS4MgLO-4; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [129.6.254.78] (unknown [129.6.254.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F8F9A4014; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:12:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8136D0ED-CD19-4AB4-B77D-15BF64B067A9@vigilsec.com> References: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: Cc: IETF SMIME Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:13:13 -0000 Martin: >> In particular, I think that CMS encrypted types might be useful here = to give them more flexibility than what they have now, and so they don't = eventually have to reinvent a bunch of CMS. It also might be overkill. = Thoughts? >=20 > It was an explicit goal to NOT have flexibility in addition to what is > provided by content-encoding negotiation. That is, if > chacha20-poly1305 was considered categorically better, a new > content-encoding would be needed and support for it negotiated using > the mechanisms that HTTP provides. I do not understand the desire to avoid crypto agility. Russ= From nobody Thu Apr 2 09:22:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213EC1B2D41 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:22:15 -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=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsmrO-j5LgVy for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D0B1ACCFD for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbfy7 with SMTP id fy7so51717585obb.2 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:22:13 -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=fzmsH92bI4/n4pGcepLwzaa6ZqAs1yY7rXe2CTV2teQ=; b=fh1MyoKi4AUaB1tGGqGH73YsQ70FoIC8T/3XvlY8xVnT11DQgxgZbR+ZsjT+57wDB/ TzQRGk/9dwKRPbvE27Ef95SSOiItotNLZwxpPSRcP6J0SiVxtZKfHEC7ri+9GSBap4Pu xmGMWvJe3xiSxNqiynr4poFvlkFyp58kbK9nFi7sA9mxByADOAvA3qlpSkpXUqRctdw4 6NV3sBm03xFZDc+4GwQHq3Vc6qXL8/jaL+DHWSGgisrDINIRfVwd8Jal6LysOvXig1/S UhjkWgsqYsgqdRGIe2xSdIUY2MgB2L9qLd1gHiFjwYt4C70vc4KBFtBTQAxUEmGtPw7J tyJA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.20.195 with SMTP id p3mr7622611obe.1.1427991733612; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:22:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8136D0ED-CD19-4AB4-B77D-15BF64B067A9@vigilsec.com> References: <1B5DE8E2-36EC-407F-917D-0A09EC9802D5@vpnc.org> <8136D0ED-CD19-4AB4-B77D-15BF64B067A9@vigilsec.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:22:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: Russ Housley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: IETF SMIME Subject: Re: [smime] HTTP Encrypted Content-Encoding X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 16:22:15 -0000 On 2 April 2015 at 08:12, Russ Housley wrote: > I do not understand the desire to avoid crypto agility. It's not a desire to avoid agility; it's a desire to have the agility mechanisms align with the extensibility model that is already in place. From nobody Mon Apr 13 14:02:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561841A86F4; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oa4tpIzyAyGt; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A7C1A86E6; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:02:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150413210233.8532.38141.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:02:33 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: smime@ietf.org, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Subject: [smime] IPR Disclosure Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631 X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:02:35 -0000 Dear Eric Rescorla: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method" (RFC2631) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2579/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631" Thank you IETF Secretariat From nobody Tue Apr 14 06:26:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE601A90F4; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:26:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MxL1zQTfCrk; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.auckland.ac.nz (mx2.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.125.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E026C1A912C; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:26:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=auckland.ac.nz; i=@auckland.ac.nz; q=dns/txt; s=uoa; t=1429017974; x=1460553974; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=UyDsO4ZOCUGCa3f6Az1Bnu8m38CvZwMw7ZtbC1mmjyU=; b=cYNZeL+7r1uJBDPYYn2x/n0m7CDdnFmIaw035qeWyMU9rg2Q2Cbbz4/d MRyC+sX/zQsbVEZlYzdBmDte1atjsQvDrPlQqVPQQlg5WQbRvFIy90IbW DyuM0UI9ZzA18YscF2LsiShXWhyOMWyJVnHn4LenDqBmpoAXnqxFQrDrF I=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,576,1422874800"; d="scan'208";a="320503391" X-Ironport-HAT: MAIL-SERVERS - $RELAYED X-Ironport-Source: 130.216.4.171 - Outgoing - Outgoing Received: from uxchange10-fe4.uoa.auckland.ac.nz ([130.216.4.171]) by mx2-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 15 Apr 2015 01:25:46 +1200 Received: from UXCN10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz ([169.254.5.163]) by uxchange10-fe4.UoA.auckland.ac.nz ([169.254.109.63]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:25:45 +1200 From: Peter Gutmann To: "smime@ietf.org" , "ipr-announce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [smime] IPR Disclosure Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631 Thread-Index: AdB2toNgTeP9reWcRCu6aWxXAosDJQ== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:25:45 +0000 Message-ID: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AAFEFE97@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-NZ X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.216.158.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [smime] IPR Disclosure Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631 X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:26:16 -0000 IETF Secretariat writes:=0A= =0A= >An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Diffie-Hellman Key= =0A= >Agreement Method" (RFC2631) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and = has=0A= >been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"= (=0A= >https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2579/). The title of the IPR disclosure i= s=0A= >"Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631"=0A= =0A= That must be one helluva submarine patent if it applies to an RFC published= =0A= sixteen years ago.=0A= =0A= (It seems pretty bizarre for this to pop up now anyway, firstly because it'= s=0A= for X9.42 in S/MIME which was pretty much universally ignored by everyone, = and=0A= secondly because the filing date for US 6563928, "Apr 1, 1999" postdates=0A= X9.42, which 2631 is based on, by quite some time).=0A= =0A= Peter.= From nobody Tue Apr 14 07:34:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0175E1A0063; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:34:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDlhXOaVam0E; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 574E71AC3BB; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so10045907lbb.3; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6tzdLYvC3qa44xTy+ZbVu2HzOTuT7mSNFzIfp6XPpyI=; b=wW4n/Ehvjk6k2rKj1xJXh/6+ufcCNdJYSvuhmH4cyu5fJtUA8QO6MkCVNexriHyhhA EH6OMeRV5C6AUgS7asISO4eSlBmnNXODvQX55L8AMYFVZrf69iik/OhqlwuRgvPb+iGq 6KeGLqXkvva3gvtPA2xwHsOMeoJOb6OtXstetDPBha8s2vYDB2yGS8m4zZ1uD8YDWhCA ucV0x2DC51Grtjc/5RbokvbPM5WlZ5w0Tr8K/B1W/mzYU7STdp8fc2OAfX/4vhDltG51 czKZqTFshcrGyMgAxfutd8lNuVD23LZSRy3J8UnCf6qG1xguT0kI9kpKfZvYekCfUjCH M4Vg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.151.226 with SMTP id ut2mr1346002lbb.55.1429022058688; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: hallam@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.147.165 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AAFEFE97@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AAFEFE97@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:34:18 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: DEYNiVOXVFzo9RrvdVGNM-lCvyQ Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Peter Gutmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "ipr-announce@ietf.org" , "smime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [smime] IPR Disclosure Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631 X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:34:28 -0000 On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote: > IETF Secretariat writes: > >>An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Diffie-Hellman Key >>Agreement Method" (RFC2631) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and has >>been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" ( >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2579/). The title of the IPR disclosure is >>"Certicom Corp.'s Statement about IPR related to RFC 2631" > > That must be one helluva submarine patent if it applies to an RFC published > sixteen years ago. > > (It seems pretty bizarre for this to pop up now anyway, firstly because it's > for X9.42 in S/MIME which was pretty much universally ignored by everyone, and > secondly because the filing date for US 6563928, "Apr 1, 1999" postdates > X9.42, which 2631 is based on, by quite some time). One of the patents has a priority date prior to the move to 20 years from issue. So it has about a year left to run. There is often an uptick in litigation just before expiry. This is probably a sign that someone is going through making sure all the boxes are ticked. But I fail to see how a disclosure made 15 years late helps matters any. From nobody Thu Apr 23 07:24:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4151A00C6 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ig5xezSNgSat for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453971A6FF7 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-98-218.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3NEOAYr008177 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-98-218.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.218] claimed to be [10.20.30.101] From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:11 -0700 References: <20150423031344.36A32180207@rfc-editor.org> To: IETF SMIME Message-Id: <9F207A21-B336-40B4-BCA6-120981F7CAF4@vpnc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Subject: [smime] Fwd: RFC 7508 on Securing Header Fields with S/MIME X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SMIME Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:24:23 -0000 Of interest to this list: > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 7508 > > Title: Securing Header Fields with S/MIME > Author: L. Cailleux, C. Bonatti > Status: Experimental > Stream: Independent > Date: April 2015 > Mailbox: laurent.cailleux@intradef.gouv.fr, > bonatti252@ieca.com > Pages: 19 > Characters: 39853 > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None > > I-D Tag: draft-cailleux-secure-headers-08.txt > > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7508 > > This document describes how the S/MIME protocol can be > extended in order to secure message header fields defined in RFC 5322. > This technology provides security services such as data integrity, > non-repudiation, and confidentiality. This extension is > referred to as 'Secure Headers'. > > > EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the > Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any > kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. > Distribution of this memo is unlimited.