IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] namespace management, DANE Client Authentication draft updated

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 13 January 2016 20:06 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 D02021B31B8 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:06:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, 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 KP4RPVlRmZ2w for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:06:41 -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 9411B1B31B7 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:06:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 34966 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2016 20:06:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Jan 2016 20:06:39 -0000
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:06:17 -0000
Message-ID: <20160113200617.65983.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20160113181428.GN18704@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/jxdrRjCh9fJs3SQQesGqBAOPl4s>
Subject: Re: [dane] namespace management, DANE Client Authentication draft updated
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 13 Jan 2016 20:06:42 -0000

>    _service._client.node.example. IN TLSA ...

Ah, we're getting closer.

>I still don't see any use for _tcp/_udp in there.

RFC 6698 has _tcp _udp and _sctp protocols as part of the names for
TLSA.

It seems rather odd to have the protocol name for the server
certificate but not for the client.

R's,
John

PS: In case it's not clear, I'm not proposing that client certs use
port numbers, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email