Re: [dane] [saag] Need better opportunistic terminology

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 12 March 2014 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 39FCE1A074E; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.019
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] 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 M6563Sq_s64f; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EBD1A074A; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA712002F; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A4088647C9; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893F3647C8; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Peter Palfrader <peter@palfrader.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140312062756.GN11878@anguilla.noreply.org>
References: <CAMm+LwjF9To+w3K4RR=72BbLNE2hJa9CibWOEARYmODiuFNu9g@mail.gmail.com> <082D04F9-DBB4-4492-BE91-C4E3616AC24D@isi.edu> <531F85D5.2070209@bbn.com> <531F8A53.1040103@isi.edu> <531F8E5F.8030705@isi.edu> <20140312062756.GN11878@anguilla.noreply.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:47:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3454.1394657237@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/Xdxxz_6_aHZSLiSkD21ynr3OrBc
Cc: saag <saag@ietf.org>, dane@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dane] [saag] Need better opportunistic terminology
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: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:47:27 -0000

Peter Palfrader <peter@palfrader.org> wrote:
    >> Why not just use the term "unauthenticated encryption", when that's
    >> exactly what's happening?

    > There is such a thing as authenticated encryption[1], as in AES GCM for
    > instance, and what we're doing here is not its opposite.  Thus, I think
    > calling this "unauthenticated encryption" would be a bad idea.

+1
and, the privacy that results from the encryption, while the primary carrot,
is simply the result of finding a way to do a DH operation.  The part that
we are all discussing is determining how (much) to trust the DH results.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-