Re: [dane] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dane-smime-03.txt

"Osterweil, Eric" <eosterweil@verisign.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <eosterweil@verisign.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 212C81A0492 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 sgWfQi-TYu9U for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og102.obsmtp.com (exprod6og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49F91A0473 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob102.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvPtx0AuUWTZgm4CfBLK56y0kZhGuZyl@postini.com; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:17:12 PST
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id s16KHBEJ007091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:17:10 -0500
From: "Osterweil, Eric" <eosterweil@verisign.com>
To: "<dane@ietf.org>" <dane@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dane] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dane-smime-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac8jWg0q4iLhCQLcdU6kJvU3W3pU8wARPKYAAADUpIA=
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 20:17:10 +0000
Message-ID: <62C57F51-CDB7-4784-9348-91D073103F4F@verisign.com>
References: <41938fd202ba460285b59132c29ac826@BY2PR09MB029.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <20140206195322.GD278@mournblade.imrryr.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140206195322.GD278@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7C4C7592CCD1A147B7C3FE93945F20F4@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dane] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dane-smime-03.txt
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:17:15 -0000

On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

<snip>

> Switching gears, was any consensus reached on the endoing of the
> query label?  A truncated HMAC seems to offer better usability than
> base32.  I think that the specification is in good shape, modulo
> the query label encoding.  

I actually have a question on this: is there some reason we are talking about HMAC instead of just straight-up using a hashing function?  iirc, hashing accomplishes the same goal (for us) w/o needing any secret material (projecting a variable length name to a fixed length label).  I'm fully willing to believe that I might just be missing something.  I mean this just as a simple clarification question.

Thanks,

Eric