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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 12 March 2014 00:21 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 BF38D1A08A1; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:21:05 -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 gc9eI9wDqxoz; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:21:04 -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 222151A08A0; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D6D20034; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:39:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 06C65647C9; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:20:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F66647C8; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:20:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140307004432.GH21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <CAMm+LwjF9To+w3K4RR=72BbLNE2hJa9CibWOEARYmODiuFNu9g@mail.gmail.com> <20140307004432.GH21390@mournblade.imrryr.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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:20:57 -0400
Message-ID: <7668.1394583657@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/g2lUKCbeOE-6Gq5stqPFuIX4Q7w
Cc: 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 00:21:05 -0000

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
    >> The term opportunistic has become the new synonym for 'Good' but it is
    >> being used for many different things.

    > Since I am the primary perpetrator of the thought crime in question,	:-)
    > I'd like to explain the term we used, and why, and solicit a better
    > term if the IETF has a better way of expressing the underlying idea.

    > Background:

    > In the Postfix community, we've historically used the term
    > "opportunistic TLS":

    > http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#client_tls_may

    > to refer to a client that employs TLS encryption without any
    > authentication when the server's EHLO response includes STARTTLS.
    > In this case the client is willing to otherwise send in the clear,
    > and, in fact, will fallback to cleartext when the TLS handshake fails.

I think that this term is consistent with rfc4322's use of opportunistic
(IPsec) encryption.

(I clipped the rest, because I have nothing to add)

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