Re: [dane] S/MIME draft

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 26 August 2014 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EFC1A870E for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.032
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
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 RmYxjHR4p5Ur for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CDAB1A871C for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00D582E12; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:22:12 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1409066532; bh=uPtlDhCnf126mOxMFxXY4pNFKEgsyYT6tH9GQzkwF4Y=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=B5Jbw8y96rFLeNZwSLQ2vvXDep3MVA40lnMk65ibDOjZLY1/Sfie9VzkCs84cpUUL cSgr4dTHsXP/TWiXLwJCeEvAGfju+DOPeIRxoIH53/bWBMOlJUUCUuHcqHgTXoB2tp 5wOw4c1rIQhC6lnOaUNUsaByOH7XTPOknbApqm7U=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s7QFMC5s001834; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:22:12 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:22:12 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Osterweil, Eric" <eosterweil@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE2072BD-39C8-42FE-B08D-7930667D5DEC@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408261110540.28003@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CE2072BD-39C8-42FE-B08D-7930667D5DEC@verisign.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/1A7b16MP53ZgoynMpaUsBGKtKRs
Cc: dane WG list <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] S/MIME draft
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:22:18 -0000

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Osterweil, Eric wrote:

> Some time ago we had some discussions about draft-ietf-dane-smime, which led to
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg06338.html
> A few of us felt that it might be productive to outline a set of requirements that we foresee DANE facing in enterprises environments (w.r.t. encrypted/signed email).  To that end, we put together the draft:
> 	``Enterprise Requirements for Secure Email Key Management''
> 	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-osterweil-dane-ent-email-reqs-00

I'm not an smime person at all and I'm a little confused about what the
document is trying to do. It talks about "key management requirements",
and then suggests specific requirements for a "protocol"?

Which protocol? I would think this would be very much in the realm of
local policies. If something is missing in the smime-dane draft for
"enterprise deployment", does that mean the smime-dane draft itself is
incomplete? Could you send PaulH and Jakob text to ensure it can support
enterprise roll-out? If it is complete, then your document should only list the
requirements on HOW to use it, instead of defining a new future protocol?


 	REQ-16  Encryption keys MUST be discoverable separately from
            signature keys.  Possible means includes (but not limited to)
            naming conventions, sub-typing or unique RR types for each
            use

                Intuition: Not all certificates for a user may be needed
                for all circumstances.  Fetching them separately can be a
                management, a scaling, or even a security concern.

This requirement for example is impossible with the current smime-dane draft? And
sub-typing these days is frowned upon.

I'm not sure how fetching the keys for encryption and signing separately
would be a security concern? That seems a little uhm, far fetched :)
If it is in public DNS, anyone can do it. If it is in private DNS, I'd
say it is already secured?

Paul