IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] email canonicalization for SMIMEA owner names

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Sat, 13 December 2014 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.com>
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 287331A01F4 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ovdV85bjlc5h for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [198.147.23.85]) (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 2D4801A01D6 for <dane@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 8295D1E7C7; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:02:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore14; t=1418486547; bh=8I/1niQ9ChKQMhJoyYadeiVdSPday92/7nqEBc+ySSk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Xur9hkgTcJDkr4LzvCLlGLTVVNXdawcKwT/Ryyh+h9OA3oR2GfZXayajd4n3lONI6 dgOH2lo4Gbw1izEFQSECgBpTnWNv2AWWE7n6Oa0iu0/IBc3xMlrbezIqGeMFomcDFg UFjqXrTjhqAffdCAemXECTzQGQWFRDhtTEUcgv90=
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5473860027; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141212231628.GM25666@mournblade.imrryr.org> (Viktor Dukhovni's message of "Fri, 12 Dec 2014 23:16:28 +0000")
References: <95826148-4F06-4942-87A4-2F6601BA0F90@nist.gov> <CABrd9SQ1umsP731hvghV92EL5y2P4i++ESyrvxUhJD==z=pKpw@mail.gmail.com> <F79847E4-C748-467F-ADA3-0DBCD5CFE697@nohats.ca> <20141212175242.GB25666@mournblade.imrryr.org> <m3bnn8xz31.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <20141212231628.GM25666@mournblade.imrryr.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2014 James Cloos
OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6; url=https://jhcloos.com/public_key/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:02:12 -0500
Message-ID: <m361dfy1vf.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 29
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:28:141213:ietf-dane@dukhovni.org::aJJ25I3ymRuuGGjh:000000000000000000000000000000000000000G50w
X-Hashcash: 1:28:141213:dane@ietf.org::mNhMrzZl67QUWH4s:0003oj7l
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/5FY09kHV3gRaugcZjq80J9aEO8Q
Cc: dane@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dane] email canonicalization for SMIMEA owner names
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: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:02:30 -0000

>>>>> "VD" == Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> writes:

VD> I was thinking of multiplexing by port, rather than URI.

I got that.

But what if the MXs already run something on port 443?

If the GET/POST path can be specified, the existing web server can proxy
to the MTA's port.  Otherwise the MTA would have to proxy anything which
it doesn't handle.

Of course, with ipv6 there are always enough addresses to put the other
443 service(s) on their own ip.  So it is a short-term issue.

And it may take longer for something like this widely to deploy than it
will for v6 to displace v4 w/in the subset of sites which would use it.

So it may not be worth worry.

Otherwise, I like the idea.

Either way, it would be cool for such a service to provide gpg keyids,
too.  So the reply should include for each line a token specifying which
kind of key (smime, gpg, future) that line matches.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email