IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] On the PKIX-TA / PKIX-CA question? [ One week WGLC ]

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> Mon, 02 December 2013 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
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 B4F7D1ADF9A for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:15:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 WM_dtgMzC2O3 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D801ADFB4 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id ED2482AB165; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:15:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:15:25 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131202221525.GO761@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <A06891E1-01E0-40CC-A9A2-171CAA39AB79@kumari.net> <m3mwkjuebd.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3mwkjuebd.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dane] On the PKIX-TA / PKIX-CA question? [ One week WGLC ]
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dane@ietf.org
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:15:30 -0000

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:34:37PM -0500, James Cloos wrote:

> My pref is that the suffices be the same for each of the prefices,
> therefore PKIX-TA vs DANE-TA vs PKIX-EE vs DANE-EE.

I'm all for neatly aligned text, and I appreciate the increased
cosmetic appeal, but surely the fact that this masks semantic
differences is more important.

    The CA in usage 0 is not a trust anchor, but it is in usage 2.

    The chain in usage 2 still requires PKIX validation, be it with
    a dynamically obtained trust anchor.

So PKIX-TA and DANE-TA are each misleading, the first is not a TA,
the second is still PKIX.  Are the acronyms just supposed to be
more memorable than the numbers, or are they supposed to concisely
convey the associated meaning?

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email