pretty Easy privacy (pEp): Progressive Header Disclosure
draft-luck-lamps-pep-header-protection-03
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Claudio Luck | ||
Last updated | 2020-01-06 (Latest revision 2019-07-05) | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Issues with email header protection in S/MIME have been recently raised in the IETF LAMPS Working Group. The need for amendments to the existing specification regarding header protection was expressed. The pretty Easy privacy (pEp) implementations currently use a mechanism quite similar to the currently standardized message wrapping for S/MIME. The main difference is that pEp is using PGP/ MIME instead, and adds space for carrying public keys next to the protected message. In LAMPS, it has been expressed that whatever mechanism will be chosen, it should not be limited to S/MIME, but also applicable to PGP/MIME. This document aims to contribute to this discussion and share the pEp implementation experience with email header protection.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)