ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

candidate MASS charter

2004-09-23 15:59:59

Folks,

The enclosed an outgrowth from the previous BOF.  I have tried to fold 
in some comments that were made about the draft circulated then, 
although this is essentially a new draft.  It tries to be very tightly 
focused, have an aggressive schedule, and produce something of clear and 
immediate utility.

Whether any of this is actually feasible will depend upon the resolve of 
the working group participants to meet the schedule and make the 
necessary compromises.  



 DRAFT CHARTER

   Message Authentication Signature Service (MASS)

 CHAIR(S)
 APPLICATION AREA DIRECTOR(S):
 AREA ADVISOR
 MAILING LISTS:

 DESCRIPTION OF WORKING GROUP:

 Internet mail transfers are increasingly subject to fraudulent
 claims of content authorship. Classic encryption-based
 authentication techniques can be applied to this problem. However
 the task of protecting the transfer phase of email may permit
 tailored solutions that would not be appropriate for longer-term
 authentication requirements. The MASS working group will produce
 specifications that support transfer-related, encryption-based
 authentication of an email message and its contents.

 Existing standardized mechanisms, for attaching a digital signature
 to an email message, are designed for different use than is required
 in this application. These distinctive requirements and
 characteristics may include:

   -  Automated signing of outgoing messages by any SMTP-initiating
      entity.
   -  Minimal computational and transactional overhead for high-volume
      email servers.
   -  Anonymity when when desired by the sender
   -  Short term protection for purposes of transit
   -  DNS-based key-related queries
   -  Facilitating offline validation

 The working group will review and revise this list, in order to
 provide a clear statement of the engineering constraints and
 freedoms that apply to this work.

 There are several proposals for a mechanism by which outgoing
 messages may offer limited proof of verifiable identity. They will
 serve as input to the working group.

   -  DomainKeys, draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01.txt
   -  Identified Internet Mail, draft-fenton-identified-mail-00.txt
   -  E-mail Postmarks, http://www.lessspam.org/EmailPostmarks.pdf
   -  MTA Signatures, http://www.elan.net/~william/mta_signatures.htm
   -  Entity-to-Entity S/MIME, draft-hallambaker-entity-00.txt
      
 The working group will seek to produce a minimal set of
 specifications, using as much prior work as possible.
 The following work items are explicitly ruled out of the scope of
 MASS:

   -  Authentication based on IP Address
   -  Rating services for conveying accreditation information
      about the signing entities

 DELIVERABLES:

 The MASS working group will specify an Internet mail mechanism for
 transit-time use, to cryptographically authentic the author or
 sender of a message and its content; the working group will
 determine which is used. The working group will determine which
 portions of the Internet mail protocols to modify.

 The MASS mechanism will include the following characteristics:

   -  A threat analysis for this mechanism

   -  Specification of the precise message contents being signed
      (notably which headers)
    
   -  A method for signing the message and its content, using public
      key technology

   -  The parametric information to be included in the message, to
      permit validation of the signature. This may include a key
      identifier or a key-holder identifier or a copy of the key.
      This also may include DNS resolution and/or may include
      additional Internet queries.
    
   -  Recommended procedures for message senders when they encounter
      message receivers that do not support the MASS mechanisms

 The following work items are explicitly ruled out of the scope of
 MASS:

   -  Address-based authentication
   -  Rating services for conveying accreditation information about
      the signing entities

 GOALS AND MILESTONES:

 Oct 04   Initial discussion
          Circulate written proposals

 Nov 04   Consensus statement of threat analysis and requirements

 Dec 04   Consensus statement on design approach
            Consensus statement on canonicalization
          Obtain external design reviews

 Feb 05   Stable drafts for review
          Obtain external reviews

 Apr 05   Final WG draft
          WG Last Call
          IETF Last Call

d/
--
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://brandenburg.com>





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>