attachment
<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>FYI - for IPP Encrypted Jobs and Documents</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>- Ira</div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Sean Turner</b> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:sean@sn3rd.com">sean@sn3rd.com</a>></span><br>Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 11:26 AM<br>Subject: [lamps] S/MIME 4+<br>To: IETF LAMPS <<a href="mailto:spasm@ietf.org">spasm@ietf.org</a>><br></div><br><br>Hi! Blake and I submitted drafts that we are hoping will be the basis for S/MIME 4+. Four things I would like to draw your attention to:<br>
<br>
1. Authors<br>
<br>
Jim Schaad passed away in 2020. Out of acknowledgement for the amount of work he put into previous versions, we have moved him to the new "Contributors” section.<br>
<br>
2. Formatting<br>
<br>
The drafts are as close to RFCs 8550 & 8551 as I could get them; previous versions had some formatting that I could not recreate with the current tools (s7.1 in RFCs 8550 & 8551 was moved to s1.2 in the bis drafts). We can then make changes and everybody can then see what’s changed. Drafts are here:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-lamps-rfc8550bis/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-lamps-rfc8550bis/</a><br>
<a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-lamps-rfc8551bis/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-lamps-rfc8551bis/</a><br>
<br>
Diffs to RFCs 8550 & 8551 are here:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8550&url2=draft-turner-lamps-rfc8550bis-00&difftype=--html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8550&url2=draft-turner-lamps-rfc8550bis-00&difftype=--html</a><br>
<a href="https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8551&url2=draft-turner-lamps-rfc8551bis-00&difftype=--html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8551&url2=draft-turner-lamps-rfc8551bis-00&difftype=--html</a><br>
<br>
3. Version Number<br>
<br>
I picked 4+ because how much we change will dictate what number we use.<br>
<br>
4. Changes to Incorporate !?!<br>
<br>
I started an issue to track what we are going to change - we can then create sub-issues to track each one we agree to do; see <a href="https://github.com/seanturner/smime/issues/1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/seanturner/smime/issues/1</a>.<br>
<br>
The one thing I absolutely sure we need to include in this update is a “fix” that addresses the Falco attack; see <a href="https://github.com/seanturner/smime/issues/2" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/seanturner/smime/issues/2</a>. BUT, the question is do we do that simply by requiring signed attributes always be present or do we do what -cms-euf-cma-signeddata recommends for new protocols and use the id-ct-mimeData content type?<br>
<br>
I am sure others will come up with more, but here are more changes to consider:<br>
• Deprecate use of EnvelopedData except for backward compatibility?<br>
• Deprecate RSA encryption?<br>
• Keep RSA-OAEP?<br>
• Add PQ algorithms?<br>
• Drop ’88 ASN.1 Module?<br>
<br>
Let the games begin!<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
spt<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Spasm mailing list -- <a href="mailto:spasm@ietf.org" target="_blank">spasm@ietf.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href="mailto:spasm-leave@ietf.org" target="_blank">spasm-leave@ietf.org</a><br>
</div></div>