Skip to main content

Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME
charter-ietf-lamps-06

Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty)

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2018-02-07 for -01-00) Unknown
It's probably a good idea to adjust the milestones so that they all have future dates on them.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2018-02-07 for -01-00) Unknown
Nice work on this one.

This is very nit-picky, but perhaps placing the explanation of each topic immediately following the list item naming the topic would be clearer? 

Like, so:

Having completed the S/MIME 4.0 specifications and updates to support
i18n email addresses in PKIX certificates, the LAMPS WG is now tackling
these topics:

1. Specify a discovery mechanism for CAA records to replace the one
   described in RFC 6844.

RFC 6844 describes the mechanism by which CAA records relating to a
domain are discovered.  Implementation experience has demonstrated an
ambiguity in the current processing of CNAME and DNAME records during
discovery.  Subsequent discussion has suggested that a different
discovery approach would resolve limitations inherent in the current
approach.

2. Specify the use of SHAKE128/256 and SHAKE256/512 for PKIX and
S/MIME.

Unlike the previous hashing standards, the SHA-3 family of functions are
the outcome of an open competition.  They have a clear design rationale
and have received a lot of public analysis, which gives great confidence
that the SHA-3 family of functions are secure.  Also, since SHA-3 uses a
very different construction from SHA-2, the SHA-3 family of functions
offers an excellent alternative.  In particular, SHAKE128/256 and
SHAKE256/512 offer security and performance benefits.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-00) Unknown