Subject: [lamps] Logo carrying certificate profile for email` draft

From: Wei Chuang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 07:02:00 +0000

Hi all,

I've posted a draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/ regarding a
logo carrying certificate for authenticated email using domain based
methods (DKIM and SPF).  In particular this draft calls for a new Extended
Key Usage for these certificates to help distinguish this usage from other
profiles such as S/MIME.  Can this draft be considered for the LAMPS
rechartering?  This work is being done by a Brand Indicator for Message
Identification (BIMI) working group.  An early version of the overall
protocol can be seen at
https://authindicators.github.io/rfc-brand-indicators-for-message-identification/
though that version doesn't include changes that include X.509
certificates.

thanks,
-Wei

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 14:25:44 -0400

Wei:

In the future, please use TBD for numbers in IANA registries.  Authors do not make assignments.  That is left to the IANA staff.

I have asked the IANA staff to reserve this value to ensure that a collision is avoided.

Russ

> On May 8, 2018, at 3:02 AM, Wei Chuang <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've posted a draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/> regarding a logo carrying certificate for authenticated email using domain based methods (DKIM and SPF).  In particular this draft calls for a new Extended Key Usage for these certificates to help distinguish this usage from other profiles such as S/MIME.  Can this draft be considered for the LAMPS rechartering?  This work is being done by a Brand Indicator for Message Identification (BIMI) working group.  An early version of the overall protocol can be seen at https://authindicators.github.io/rfc-brand-indicators-for-message-identification/ <https://authindicators.github.io/rfc-brand-indicators-for-message-identification/> though that version doesn't include changes that include X.509 certificates.  
> 
> thanks,
> -Wei 
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 12:54:59 -0400

Wei:

I think that an Independent stream document is sufficient to get the code point assignments.

Russ

---

From: Wei Chuang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:00:05 -0700

I'm fine with that.  I was checking with the author of the other likely
IETF document (BIMI assertion records) whether he intended his document to
be standards track to make sure that's aligned (likely it should be).

-Wei

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:55 AM Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/ regarding
> a logo carrying certificate for authenticated email using domain based

---

From: Wei Chuang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 12:52:45 -0700

Hi all,

I chatted with the author of a related document to see if the independent
stream is appropriate as the disposition of both documents should be
similar.  He actually talked with Alexey Melnikov about a separate working
group so perhaps the BIMI certificate draft can go there, otherwise the
independent stream is fine.  In either case I withdraw consideration of
draft-chuang-bimi-certificate
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/> for the
LAMPS recharter.

-Wei

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:00 AM Wei Chuang <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-bimi-certificate/
>> regarding a logo carrying certificate for authenticated email using domain
>> based methods (DKIM and SPF).  In particular this draft calls for a new
>> Extended Key Usage for these certificates to help distinguish this usage
>> from other profiles such as S/MIME.  Can this draft be considered for the
>> LAMPS rechartering?  This work is being done by a Brand Indicator for
>> Message Identification (BIMI) working group.  An early version of the
>> overall protocol can be seen at