IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronym

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 07 October 2013 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@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 C161821E818D for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 06:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eyOTSzQ6QVdd for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 06:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCB621E80AB for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 06:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:40844 helo=comsec.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1VTB5G-000GOy-B9; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:42:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5252BA5A.2040209@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:42:50 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dane@ietf.org
References: <20130919201216.14866.61161.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EACEEB05-2023-4F76-A6FE-A9B2FDC0AA59@kumari.net> <024c01cec2dc$72b596e0$5820c4a0$@augustcellars.com> <20131006224742.GA483@mournblade.imrryr.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131006224742.GA483@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dane] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronym
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, 07 Oct 2013 13:42:57 -0000

Viktor,
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:38:50PM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
>
>> 5.  As I have stated before, I am not a fan of using DANE-TA for value 2.
>> To me this loses the fact that there will be PKIX processing that occurs
>> with this section.  I would strongly recommend that this become PKIX-TA.
> I think that would confuse almost everyone.  The "PKI" part of PKIX
> carries inappropriate in this context mental baggage.
>
> Yes, any trust-anchor implies validating certificate chains,
> performing name on the leaf, ...  Thus the mechanics of validating
> usage 2 associations are very similar to the mechanics of doing
> the same with an a-priori configured public CA trust anchor.  Alas,
> when one hears PKIX, the associated mental baggage includes the
> full panoply of public CAs and not does evoke the decentralized
> DANE model.
no for everyone :-). PKIX RFCs do not address the public TA/CA
model in browsers to which you refer. So the mental baggage to which
you refer is an example of an inappropriate-sized carry on (to run
that metaphor into the ground).

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email