Re: [dane] Reusing TLSA

Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Mon, 24 September 2012 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8466721F880C for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRoN+OkrR77I for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A186A21F8807 for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.253.48] (port=58289) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1TGBwT-000LeU-8i; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:55:33 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:55:32 +0200
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <E0F96E5D300846C6872F8755F6368A39@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE6C9DF2-E86E-4CEF-A537-D68C5952B602@vpnc.org>
References: <FE6C9DF2-E86E-4CEF-A537-D68C5952B602@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.3 (build 1172)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="50609084_5675ff36_7b3"
Cc: IETF DANE WG list <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Reusing TLSA
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:55:38 -0000

Ok, yeah, I am really off today. 

FWIW, in case it wasn't clear, I am in favor of re-using the TLSA RR type for S/MIME (finding it under a different name).   That is, removing Section 5.1 from the WG document, which is mis-named anyway.

--Richard


-- 
Richard Barnes
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)


On Monday, September 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> I'm starting this as a new thread because Richard conflated two topics *and* missed the fact that there is already a WG document.
> 
> The question becomes what the registration of an RRtype "means". If it means the bits on the wire of the *response* and their semantics, then I think the S/MIME document can use the TLSA RRtype. If an RRtype also means the bits on the wire of the request and response, we can't.
> 
> Personally, I think that the RRtype is defined just by the bits in the response, so we could reuse, but others might disagree.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org (mailto:dane@ietf.org)
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
> 
>