Skip to main content

Header Protection for Cryptographically Protected E-mail
draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection-20

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, spasm@ietf.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Header Protection for Cryptographically Protected E-mail' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection-20.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Header Protection for Cryptographically Protected E-mail'
  (draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection-20.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX
and SMIME Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Paul Wouters and Roman Danyliw.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   S/MIME version 3.1 introduced a mechanism to provide end-to-end
   cryptographic protection of e-mail message headers.  However, few
   implementations generate messages using this mechanism, and several
   legacy implementations have revealed rendering or security issues
   when handling such a message.

   This document updates the S/MIME specification ([RFC8551]) to offer a
   different mechanism that provides the same cryptographic protections
   but with fewer downsides when handled by legacy clients.  The Header
   Protection schemes described here are also applicable to messages
   with PGP/MIME cryptographic protections.  Furthermore, this document
   offers more explicit guidance for clients when generating or handling
   e-mail messages with cryptographic protection of message headers.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Russ Housley. The Responsible
   Area Director is Roman Danyliw.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note