Re: [Bimi] Today's BoF

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A0512006A for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=UMh/VTDR; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=efn17ejm
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vqP3MS2QE89U for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D2312025A for <bimi@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 60717 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2019 19:54:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ed29.5ca3bde2.k1904; bh=wF/YhdDYXQvYl+nIkDjTlDdfpGsFtkmh8VFAfjNGeRw=; b=UMh/VTDRSkoeCtdvArIu/uH53ZwxJ7I5/K3sQoivcdE5veyGSi61okRevrSHSboAjgxUkDLnEvcpNF6DuZCB5N4l8p0SyW91Yb/V5lswzuY0+G0IqHnJzjL/FcBnA74U+lK05z9kMB7eahTsdPjVyhmRsFIzDBklQfMgXMldxF17aha0eBBzyRm6IQQeMGhCMthOMu1VjoQ3E3btFoZOivQPveLrOMdNyFUKFQ1Zye1Xo35E8Tb9YkOunyzCJSEX
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ed29.5ca3bde2.k1904; bh=wF/YhdDYXQvYl+nIkDjTlDdfpGsFtkmh8VFAfjNGeRw=; b=efn17ejm7zvmdseHCzF+vm/SEpIswAxeKvKGfgscX2aPgOmm1WkOxpMlMMAitimByDLA4fldQdi8eC874IQY/S2X6eWNToHsYcWzvOh0S43QopSWqLEv7cnIc5qXQZ7WbueXjzC7iCxZSRZPt8jxBRZq62VryaHT6PPWirOLh18xIphAD6CbphOmdDE4sNf3QJ7Ua7ST0ajhqlXxffHJLanCAHTi8vzlFF2EIc5nOEvo8yShNKtNF0pWSxiQln7E
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 02 Apr 2019 19:54:09 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7C6FA201144B7C; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 15:54:08 -0400
Message-Id: <20190402195409.7C6FA201144B7C@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: bimi@ietf.org
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
In-Reply-To: <DD71F5FAA85F312FDB5EF7E4@PSB>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/deURnVS6eLfG3rLmONR198mKg7c>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] Today's BoF
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Brand Indicators for Message Identification <bimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:bimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 19:54:15 -0000

In article <DD71F5FAA85F312FDB5EF7E4@PSB> you write:
>...  So someone comes
>along, someone who is clearly not BigCo, and obtains BigCo.evil
>(remember, all they need is ability to pay and an email
>address).   They have little trouble obtaining certificates in
>that name because, as far as the DNS environment is concerned,
>they legitimately hold it.

Nobody is assuming that you can get a bimi cert (or whatever) merely
with a domain name similar to the target trademark.  I gather that one
of the gorillas accidentally made this mistake in their informal logo
collection system and a motivation for bimi is to keep it from
happening again.

Of course this returns us to the major question of whether it's
possible to invent an effective system to check bimi applications.  I
could invent one that involved a staff of trademark lawyers, but I
don't think anyone outside the S&P 500 would find that usable.

R's,
John