Subject: [lamps] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-samples

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:41:55 -0400

Title: S/MIME Example Keys and Certificates

Author: D.K. Gillmor

Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-samples/

The PKCS#12 issue has been resolved, so as discussed in the LAMPS meeting at IETF 111, we are going to proceed to WG Last Call. Since many people are on vacation in August and it would be very helpful if several mail clients were tested with these samples, the WG Last Call will have a longer duration than normal. So the WG Last Call will run until Tuesday, September 7th. Please review the document and respond with any comments or concerns on the mail list.

For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
  Russ

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:37:36 -0400

On Tue 2021-08-17 16:41:55 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> The PKCS#12 issue has been resolved, so as discussed in the LAMPS
> meeting at IETF 111, we are going to proceed to WG Last Call. Since
> many people are on vacation in August and it would be very helpful if
> several mail clients were tested with these samples, the WG Last Call
> will have a longer duration than normal. So the WG Last Call will run
> until Tuesday, September 7th. Please review the document and respond
> with any comments or concerns on the mail list.

I encourage people to try out these keys, certificates, and bundles, and
report whether they believe them to be appropriate for use in the
context of end-to-end-encrypted S/MIME-protected e-mail.

As i wrote in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Of8CAPrWZKd0bY3Ye6ta8ENUIgE,
the main outstanding questions appear to be whether the LAMPS WG thinks
that the PKCS#12 object parameters are reasonable -- but i hope folks
will test the keys and certs -- particularly the 25519-based ones -- for
use regardless of PKCS#12 and flag any potential problems with them with
particular clients.

           --dkg