Re: [dane] email canonicalization for SMIMEA owner names

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 13 December 2014 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 170801A1A98 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 nDD6O7ddAXIH for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB6391A1A78 for <dane@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:17:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 87769 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2014 18:17:43 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2014 18:17:43 -0000
Date: 13 Dec 2014 18:17:24 -0000
Message-ID: <20141213181724.16565.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20141213045908.GT25666@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/PQYU2U0AzhXoLMez3wLJcj-huMc
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 18:17:49 -0000

>Also do they see key lookup for encryption on first contact as a
>requirement?  Or is signature-only first contact with encryption
>keys provided optionally on reply, their preferred  model for
>encryption key distribution.

How does that differ from what S/MIME does now, give or take the warts
of which CAs you trust?

It seems to me that SMIMEA offers two things:

* verify an incoming signature without reference to a CA

* encrypt mail to people who haven't already sent you a key

Of the two, the second seems much more important.  If it's only the
first, I don't think it's worth the effort.

R's,
John