On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 December 2013 17:44, Livingood, Jason > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I totally understand the problem statement. But what concrete things can > > you enumerate as goals/output of the WG? > > I already did enumerate the one current output: RFC 6962-bis. > > Other interesting targets include DNSSEC transparency, email-to-key > mappings and binary transparency. All implicitly already in the > charter.
I am currently working on an email scheme that is intended to consume such a service. The big difference as I see it is that with TLS we only have the transparency issue to work on. In email we have a big functionality gap in S/MIME which is the lack of a viable key discovery infrastructure. We have plenty of proposals but nothing got done. If we are going to do transparency in that sphere we should look at the two problems together since any transparency infrastructure is potentially a solution to the discovery problem. If I can ask the transparency infrastructure if someone else has registered a key for [email protected] to see if someone is impersonating me, then someone who is trying to send me an email can ask the same infrastructure what keys are registered for me. The other big difference is in latency. Email is store and forward. The issues that motivate putting transparency statements inside the certs in SSL do not apply. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
