Internet DRAFT - draft-birk-pep-trustwords
draft-birk-pep-trustwords
Network Working Group B. Hoeneisen
Internet-Draft H. Marques
Intended status: Standards Track pEp Foundation
Expires: July 12, 2020 January 09, 2020
IANA Registration of Trustword Lists: Guide, Template and IANA
Considerations
draft-birk-pep-trustwords-05
Abstract
This document specifies the IANA Registration Guidelines for
Trustwords, describes corresponding registration procedures, and
provides a guideline for creating Trustword list specifications.
Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English),
which hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Such a mapping makes
verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more practical,
and less prone to misunderstandings.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Concept of Trustword Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Number of Trustwords for a language . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. The nature of the words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Registration Template (XML chunk) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. IANA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Language Code (<languagecode>) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.2. Bit Size (<bitsize>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.3. Number Of Unique Words (<numberofuniquewords>) . . . 8
5.2.4. Bijectivity (<bijective>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.5. Version (<version>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.6. Registration Document(s) (<registrationdocs>) . . . . 9
5.2.7. Requesters (<requesters>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.8. Further Information (<additionalinfo>) . . . . . . . 9
5.2.9. Wordlist (<wordlist>) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. IANA XML Template Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Document Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
In public-key cryptography, comparing the respective public key
fingerprints for each of the communication partners involved is vital
to ensure that there is no Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack on the
communication channel. These fingerprints normally consist of a
chain of hexadecimal characters, which are often impractical,
cumbersome, and prone to misunderstandings for end-users.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
To mitigate these challenges, several systems offer Trustword
comparison as an alternative to these hexadecimal strings.
Trustwords are common words in a natural language (e.g., English),
which these hexadecimal strings are mapped to. Using Trustwords
makes verification processes like fingerprint comparisons more
natural for users.
For example, in pEp's Privacy by Default proposition [I-D.birk-pep]
Trustwords are used to facilitate easy contact verification for end-
to-end encryption. Trustword comparison is offered after the peers
have opportunistically exchanged public keys. Examples of Trustword
lists used by current pEp implementations can be found here in CSV
format: https://pep.foundation/dev/repos/pEpEngine/file/tip/db.
In addition to contact verification, Trustwords are also used for
other purposes, such as Human-Readable 128-bit Keys [RFC1751], One
Time Passwords (OTP) [RFC1760] [RFC2289], SSH host-key verification,
VPN server certificate verification, deriving private keys in
blockchain applications for cryptocurrencies, and to import or
synchronize secret keys across multiple devices owned by a single
user [I-D.pep-keysync]. Further ideas include the use of Trustwords
for private key recovery in case of loss, contact verification in
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [RFC6120], or for
X.509 certificate verification in browsers [RFC3647].
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Terms
The following terms are defined for the scope of this document:
o pEp Handshake: The process of one user contacting another over an
independent channel in order to verify Trustwords (or fingerprints
as a fallback). This can be done in-person or through established
verbal communication channels, like a phone call.
[I-D.marques-pep-handshake]
o Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack: cf. [RFC4949], which states: "A
form of active wiretapping attack in which the attacker intercepts
and selectively modifies communicated data to masquerade as one or
more of the entities involved in a communication association."
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
2. The Concept of Trustword Mapping
2.1. Example
As already discussed, fingerprints normally consist of a string of
hexadecimal characters. A typical fingerprint looks like this:
F482 E952 2F48 618B 01BC 31DC 5428 D7FA ACDC 3F13
Instead of the hexadecimal string, Trustwords allow users to compare
ten common words of a language of their choosing. For example, the
above fingerprint, mapped to English Trustwords, might appear as:
dog house brother town fat bath school banana kite task
The same fingerprint might appear in German Trustwords as:
klima gelb lappen weg trinken alles kaputt rasen rucksack durch
Note: These examples are for illustration purposes only, and are not
derived from any published Trustword list.
2.2. Previous work
The basic concept of Trustword mapping - also known as a biometric
word list - for fingerprint comparison is well-documented. Examples
of this concept are used with One-Time Passwords (OTP) [RFC1751]
[RFC1760] [RFC2289], as well as the PGP Word List ("Pretty Good
Privacy word list" [PGP.wl]. Furthermore, cryptocurrencies use a
similar concept for deriving private keys [bitcoin.wl].
[[ TODO: Explain each previous usage a bit further and synchronize
with section Section 1. ]]
Regarding today's needs, previous proposals have the following
shortcomings:
o Small/limited word lists, which generally result in more words to
compare
o Existing word lists are usually only available in English, which
limits their usefulness for non-English speakers
Furthermore, there are differences in the basic concept:
o The Trustword concept suggested herein intends to improve
usability and security for all users, instead of only the
technically-savvy.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
o In many use cases, Trustwords are only read (aloud) during the
comparison process, rather than being written or typed. For
example, two users might compare their respective Trustwords
during a phone call. Verbal comparison reduces the need to keep
the actual Trustwords short. The use of longer Trustwords
increases the entropy within the system, as it allows for a larger
dictionary, and thus reduces the likelihood of phonetic
collisions.
2.3. Number of Trustwords for a language
If the number of Trustwords in a dictionary is low, shorter parts of
the original string (e.g., fingerprint) can be mapped to a single
Trustword. Thus, many Trustwords will need to be compared, which
results in a potentially cumbersome process for users, and lead to
reduced usability.
To reduce the number of Trustwords that need to be compared, pEp's
Privacy by Default proposition [I-D.birk-pep] calls for 16-bit
scalars to be mapped to natural language words. Therefore, the size
(by number of key-value pairs) of any key-value pair structure is
65536. However, the number of unique values to be used in a language
may be smaller than this number. This discrepancy can be addressed
by using the same value, or Trustword, for more than one key. In
such cases, the entropy of the representation is slightly reduced.
For example, a Trustword list of 42000 words still allows for an
entropy of log_2(42000), which is roughly 15.36 bits in 16-bit
mappings. As a consequence such Trustword lists are not bijective.
On the other hand, small Trustword lists allow for Trustwords
consisting of words with shorter strings (number of short words per
natural language is normally limited), which are easier to use in
implementations where Trustwords have to be typed or written, such as
in OTP applications.
Note: This specification allows for registration of variable numbers
of Trustwords per dictionary.
2.4. Language
Although English is used around the world, the vast majority of the
global population is not English-speaking. For an application to be
useful to as wide of a user base as possible, localization is
essential. Therefore, this specification allows for registration of
Trustword lists in different languages.
In applications where two humans are attempting to establish secure
communications, it is likely that they share a common language. At
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
this time, no real-world use cases for Trustword list translation
capability have been identified. Because the translation process
inherently - and drastically - increases complexity from an IANA
registration standpoint, the topic of Trustword translation is beyond
the scope of this document.
2.5. The nature of the words
Every Trustword list SHOULD be clear of offensive language (i.e.,
swear/curse words, slurs, derogatory language, etc.). This process
SHOULD be performed by native speakers of each respective language.
3. Security Considerations
There are no specific security considerations.
4. Privacy Considerations
[[ TODO ]]
5. IANA Considerations
Each natural language requires a different set of Trustwords. To
allow implementers for identical Trustword lists, a IANA registry is
to be established. The IANA registration policy according to
[RFC8126] is "Expert Review" and "Specification Required".
[[ Note: Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for
the expert to assess the specification are for further study. A
similar approach as used in [RFC6117] is likely followed. ]]
5.1. Registration Template (XML chunk)
<record>
<languagecode>
<!-- ISO 639-3 (e.g. eng, deu, ...) -->
</languagecode>
<bitsize>
<!-- How many bits can be mapped with this list
(e.g. 8, 16, ...) -->
</bitsize>
<numberofuniquewords>
<!-- number of unique words registered
(e.g. 256, 65536, ...) -->
</numberofuniquewords>
<bijective>
<!-- whether or not the list allows for a two-way-mapping
(e.g. yes, no) -->
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
</bijective>
<version>
<!-- version number within language
(e.g. b.1.2, n.0.1, ...) -->
</version>
<registrationdocs>
<!-- Change accordingly -->
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc2551"/>
</registrationdocs>
<requesters>
<!-- Change accordingly -->
<xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
<xref type="person" data="Jane_Dale"/>
</requesters>
<additionalinfo>
<paragraph>
<!-- Text with additional information about
the Wordlist to be registered -->
</paragraph>
<artwork>
<!-- There can be artwork sections, too -->
</artwork>
</additionalinfo>
<wordlist>
<!-- Change accordingly -->
<w0>first</w0>
<w1>second</w1>
[...]
<w65535>last<w65535>
</wordlist>
</record>
<people>
<person id="John_Doe">
<name> <!-- Firstname Lastname --> </name>
<org> <!-- Organization Name --> </org>
<uri> <!-- mailto: or http: URI --> </uri>
<updated> <!-- date format YYYY-MM-DD --> </updated>
</person>
<!-- repeat person section for each person -->
</people>
Authors of a Wordlist are encouraged to use these XML chunks as a
template to create the IANA Registration Template.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
5.2. IANA Registration
An IANA registration will contain the fallowing elements:
5.2.1. Language Code (<languagecode>)
The language code follows the ISO 639-3 specification [ISO639], e.g.,
eng, deu.
[[ Note: It is for further study, which of the ISO 639 Specifications
is most suitable to address the Trustwords' challenge. ]]
Example usage for German:
e.g. <languagecode>deu</languagecode>
5.2.2. Bit Size (<bitsize>)
The bit size is the number of bits that can be mapped with the
Wordlist. The number of registered words in a word list MUST be 2 ^
"(<bitsize>)".
Example usage for 16-bit Wordlist:
e.g. <bitsize>16</bitsize>
5.2.3. Number Of Unique Words (<numberofuniquewords>)
The number of unique words that are registered.
e.g. <numberofuniquewords>65536</numberofuniquewords>
5.2.4. Bijectivity (<bijective>)
Whether the registered Wordlist has a one-to-one mapping, meaning the
number of unique words registered equals 2 ^ "(<bitsize>)".
Valid content: ( yes | no )
e.g. <bijective>yes</bijective>
5.2.5. Version (<version>)
The version of the Wordlist MUST be unique within a language code.
[[ Note: Requirements to a "smart" composition of the version number
are for further study ]]
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
e.g. <version>b.1.2</version>
5.2.6. Registration Document(s) (<registrationdocs>)
Reference(s) to the Document(s) containing the Wordlist
e.g. <registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc4979"/>
</registrationdocs>
e.g. <registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc8888"/> (obsoleted by RFC 9999)
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc9999"/>
</registrationdocs>
e.g. <registrationdocs>
[International Telecommunications Union,
"Wordlist for Foobar application",
ITU-F Recommendation B.193, Release 73, Mar 2009.]
</registrationdocs>
5.2.7. Requesters (<requesters>)
The persons requesting the registration of the Wordlist. Usually
these are the authors of the Wordlist.
e.g. <requesters>
<xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
</requesters>
<people>
<person id="John_Doe">
<name>John Doe</name>
<org>Example Inc.</org>
<uri>mailto:john.doe@example.com</uri>
<updated>2018-06-20</updated>
</person>
</people>
Note: If there is more than one requester, there must be one <xref>
element per requester in the <requesters> element, and one <person>
chunk per requester in the <people> element.
5.2.8. Further Information (<additionalinfo>)
Any other information the authors deem interesting.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
e.g. <additionalinfo>
<paragraph>more info goes here</paragraph>
</additionalinfo>
Note: If there is no such additional information, then the
<additionalinfo> element is omitted.
5.2.9. Wordlist (<wordlist>)
The full Wordlist to be registered. The number of words MUST be a
power of 2 as specified above. The element names serve as key used
for enumeration of the Trustwords (starting at 0) and the elements
contains the values being individual natural language words in the
respective language.
e.g. <wordlist>
<w0>first</w0>
<w1>second</w1>
[...]
<w65535>last<w65535>
</wordlist>
] ]>
[[ Note: The exact representation of the Wordlist is for further
study. ]]
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following people who have
provided feedback or significant contributions to the development of
this document: Andrew Sullivan, Claudio Luck, Daniel Kahn Gilmore,
Kelly Bristol, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Volker Birk, and Yoav
Nir.
This work was initially created by pEp Foundation, and then reviewed
and extended with funding by the Internet Society's Beyond the Net
Programme on standardizing pEp. [ISOC.bnet]
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
7.2. Informative References
[bitcoin.wl]
"Seed Phrase", June 2019, <https://en.bitcoin.it/w/
index.php?title=Seed_phrase&oldid=66492#Word_Lists>.
[I-D.birk-pep]
Birk, V., Marques, H., and B. Hoeneisen, "pretty Easy
privacy (pEp): Privacy by Default", draft-birk-pep-05
(work in progress), November 2019.
[I-D.marques-pep-handshake]
Marques, H. and B. Hoeneisen, "pretty Easy privacy (pEp):
Contact and Channel Authentication through Handshake",
draft-marques-pep-handshake-04 (work in progress), January
2020.
[I-D.pep-keysync]
Birk, V., Hoeneisen, B., and K. Bristol, "pretty Easy
privacy (pEp): Key Synchronization Protocol (KeySync)",
draft-pep-keysync-00 (work in progress), November 2019.
[ISO639] "Language codes - ISO 639", n.d.,
<https://www.iso.org/iso-639-language-codes.html>.
[ISOC.bnet]
Simao, I., "Beyond the Net. 12 Innovative Projects
Selected for Beyond the Net Funding. Implementing Privacy
via Mass Encryption: Standardizing pretty Easy privacy's
protocols", June 2017, <https://www.internetsociety.org/
blog/2017/06/12-innovative-projects-selected-for-beyond-
the-net-funding/>.
[PGP.wl] "PGP word list", November 2017,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=PGP_word_list&oldid=749481933>.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
[RFC1751] McDonald, D., "A Convention for Human-Readable 128-bit
Keys", RFC 1751, DOI 10.17487/RFC1751, December 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1751>.
[RFC1760] Haller, N., "The S/KEY One-Time Password System",
RFC 1760, DOI 10.17487/RFC1760, February 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1760>.
[RFC2289] Haller, N., Metz, C., Nesser, P., and M. Straw, "A One-
Time Password System", STD 61, RFC 2289,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2289, February 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2289>.
[RFC3647] Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C., and S.
Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3647, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3647>.
[RFC6117] Hoeneisen, B., Mayrhofer, A., and J. Livingood, "IANA
Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA
Considerations", RFC 6117, DOI 10.17487/RFC6117, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6117>.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
Appendix A. IANA XML Template Example
This section contains a non-normative example of the IANA
Registration Template XML chunk.
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
<record>
<languagecode>lat</languagecode>
<bitsize>16</bitsize>
<numberofuniquewords>57337</numberofuniquewords>
<bijective>no</bijective>
<version>n.0.1</version>
<registrationdocs>
<xref type="rfc" data="rfc2551"/>
</registrationdocs>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Julius_Caesar"/>
</requesters>
<additionalinfo>
<paragraph>
This Wordlist has been optimized for
the Roman Standards Process.
</paragraph>
</additionalinfo>
<wordlist>
<w0>errare</w0>
<w1>humanum</w1>
[...]
<w65535>est<w65535>
</wordlist>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Julius_Caesar">
<name>Julius Caesar</name>
<org>Curia Romana</org>
<uri>mailto:julius.cesar@example.com</uri>
<updated>1999-12-31</updated>
</person>
</people>
Appendix B. Document Changelog
[[ RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication ]]
o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-05:
* Update terms and references
o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-04:
* Add Privacy Considerations section
* Swapped Security and IANA Consideration Sections
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
* Corrected typo in ISO references
* Updated Introduction, Terms and concept Sections
o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03:
* Update references
* Minor edits
o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-02:
* Minor editorial changes and bug fixes
* Added more items to Open Issues
* Add usage example
o draft-birk-pep-trustwords-01:
* Included feedback from mailing list and IETF-101 SECDISPATCH
WG, e.g.
+ Added more explanatory text / less focused on the main use
case
+ Bit size as parameter
* Explicitly stated translations are out-of-scope for this
document
* Added draft IANA XML Registration template, considerations,
explanation and examples
* Added Changelog to Appendix
* Added Open Issue section to Appendix
Appendix C. Open Issues
[[ RFC Editor: This section should be empty and is to be removed
before publication. ]]
o Better explain previous work on Trustwords
o More explanatory text for Trustword use cases, properties and
requirements
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
o Further details of the IANA registry and requirements for the
expert to assess the specification
o Decide which ISO language code either 639-1 or 639-3 to use, i.e.,
ISO-639-1 (e.g., ca, de, en, ...) as currently used in pEp
implementations (running code) or ISO-639-3 (eng, deu, ita, ...)
o Adjust exact representation of wordlists
* e.g. XML, CSV, ...
* Syntax for non-ASCII letters or language symbols (UTF-8) in
Wordlists
o Need for optional entropy value assigned to words, to account for
similar phonetics among words in the same wordlist?
o Need for an additional field, to define what a wordlist is
optimized for, e.g., "entropy", "minimize word lengths", ...?
o Work out (requirements for) "smart" composition of the version
number
o Decide whether in non-bijective Wordlists the redundant words need
to be repeated in the IANA Registration
o Register only a hash over the wordlist with IANA?
o Does it make sense to open registrations for other patterns than
just words, e.g., images?
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Hoeneisen
pEp Foundation
Oberer Graben 4
CH-8400 Winterthur
Switzerland
Email: bernie.hoeneisen@pep.foundation
URI: https://pep.foundation/
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IANA Registration of Trustword Lists January 2020
Hernani Marques
pEp Foundation
Oberer Graben 4
CH-8400 Winterthur
Switzerland
Email: hernani.marques@pep.foundation
URI: https://pep.foundation/
Hoeneisen & Marques Expires July 12, 2020 [Page 16]
