Re: [dane] [saag] Need better opportunistic terminology

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 12 March 2014 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 E957F1A074C; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 kHmrHYk6FG25; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E531A0795; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2CLxYS9009943 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5320D8C6.5070609@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:59:34 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, dane@ietf.org, saag <saag@ietf.org>
References: <CAMm+LwjF9To+w3K4RR=72BbLNE2hJa9CibWOEARYmODiuFNu9g@mail.gmail.com> <082D04F9-DBB4-4492-BE91-C4E3616AC24D@isi.edu> <531F85D5.2070209@bbn.com> <531F8A53.1040103@isi.edu> <53206293.8020907@bbn.com> <5320900C.2030007@isi.edu> <5320D5DD.8060204@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <5320D5DD.8060204@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/7RiK4oIMKnvGUWDfKBnPTdQkOKs
Subject: Re: [dane] [saag] Need better opportunistic terminology
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: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:00:14 -0000

Steve (et al.),

On 3/12/2014 2:47 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
...
>> Is there a reason not to just call unauthenticated key exchange what
>> it is - unauthenticated key exchange?
> I think we want more than that, as I described above, hence the desire
> to coin a new term.

No disagreement; there seems to be a need then for two terms:

	1. unauthenticated key exchange/use

	2. security that uses authentication when available,
	but allows unauthenticated methods as a backup

Personally, I'd call the first "zero-ID" (yes, FWIW, the similarity to 
'zero-touch' was intentional), and the second "zero-ID fallback".

I'm not wed to either term, but "opportunistic" doesn't seem useful 
because OE seems to me a lot more like "use this key and hope it works", 
which isn't part of either case above.

Joe