IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Encoding local parts in better ways

"Wiley, Glen" <gwiley@verisign.com> Wed, 14 October 2015 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <gwiley@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 E67611AC3DE for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 lJ6zCrQtHdJH for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f97.google.com (mail-oi0-f97.google.com [209.85.218.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01311AC3C6 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiaj5 with SMTP id j5so4441578oia.3 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:mime-version; bh=v9cMa+8SV6iw057egzyI2RzlIvHsQ2UdJ/bC90pVoAI=; b=POWPC3rkc/LColpynYI+uv6E41pJn9xcnt/RPHRG90WmSHYqyN6H9P1VCNUyu+9W3E OXIP63vE9MNe++u4juGlMJLmMSNZ6RY21E4eTtCreAQcxAbMWB7qdUVWhEs/BtSiVhLq EvyAPCJ0lCBDjyeC5CLBAsqH88+tUeGIEmkekc/o/3eCtA6u0pQnXNPn/eQUqd4jzEsJ sisABiv4SjTaSVlw38GMziHxqhtPc6JF6kTnqhC0T6r8/vux8MR1LAzbcYjCi8c7iRzI O9C7CkU2FU3ImDaUxu7/oqqYdPVG1R5BtTXRlcKw5IcSHTOTxIHZho7hu8j/CzlAVPxC d+xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlLS0dYlotTany2uD18CeOgd2YKYWSmCFby1YcRBhwutxRWgCfP2j4+wZOEi/QSS/RzYSZXLpwm8XehkYNnMZZ30MdVcQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.19.45 with SMTP id 42mr4666562qgg.42.1444835665991; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTPS id e77sm782184qkj.7.2015.10.14.08.14.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t9EFEPH1007579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:14:25 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:14:25 -0400
From: "Wiley, Glen" <gwiley@verisign.com>
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Thread-Topic: [dane] Encoding local parts in better ways
Thread-Index: AQHQ9CFWebwUu8so/EyU0df4wQGraZ5rKNOAgABWxoD//74mAA==
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:14:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D243E95D.1C5E0%gwiley@verisign.com>
References: <20150921035448.5523.qmail@ary.lan> <D243D61B.1C562%gwiley@verisign.com> <41654219-9895-465D-B17A-C35CD16224D4@seantek.com>
In-Reply-To: <41654219-9895-465D-B17A-C35CD16224D4@seantek.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3527666062_5982190"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/LO5Z9i62ml-OA1bJUi1aIMxp2fo>
Cc: "dane@ietf.org" <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Encoding local parts in better ways
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 14 Oct 2015 15:14:31 -0000

Section 4 reads as though it is specifying base32 encoding, as it is
written I don’t see room for interpreting that as allowing for a hash.
-- 
Glen Wiley

Principal Engineer
Verisign, Inc.
(571) 230-7917

A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24
6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A




On 10/14/15, 11:10 AM, "Sean Leonard" <dev+ietf@seantek.com> wrote:

>
>On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:59 AM, Wiley, Glen <gwiley@verisign.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>> 
>> I read the draft.
>> 
>> In the list of approaches you include literal, encoded, regex and
>>pointer
>> but I didn¹t see a place to refer to hashes (such as SHA224).  While
>>there
>> are different views on the use of hashes for local parts, would it makes
>> sense to allow for the future use of a hash?
>
>Probably makes sense conceptually as a sub-part of “encoded” (Section 4).
>Some encodings are reversible (e.g., base32); others are one-way (e.g.,
>CRC); yet others are one-way and also collision-resistant (e.g.,
>SHA-224). The commonality that they share is that they preserve the
>byte-for-byte/case-sensitive matching of SMTP.
>
>Sean
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email