IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] Behavior in the face of no answer?

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 39BAA21F8634 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 dG7DAMM6KS6r for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CBF21F8633 for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EFB01ECB41C for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 16:53:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 12:53:15 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120504165311.GB7394@mail.yitter.info>
References: <20120504023602.GA4683@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBO93n_C5detefBcOjAoswe2inGKDj65gQPDQmREyGnhAw@mail.gmail.com> <20120504112922.GB4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBPTTa07iUHo9XL5WrHGMYHwaQzs6xYtiF25O4Jek8E3RQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120504144426.GD4929@mail.yitter.info> <CABcZeBOM_0L42Rng75AsVda9u4G=FH8=OB8Qg=nQpL-BzRoBuQ@mail.gmail.com> <3FF36EBA-F8B1-4D66-BA00-E8E36A7E449D@kumari.net> <CABcZeBP2iRLa76rSXu4A0OwFxP=tqK1ShZ6wv=6wnaEC6uad+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMfhd9XYS=9SGotCTwa7NJU4L8WFys2rDVsQZxn4a0wz+NxS3Q@mail.gmail.com> <6015A12B-8CA9-426B-9AFF-32CD4211DAB5@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6015A12B-8CA9-426B-9AFF-32CD4211DAB5@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dane] Behavior in the face of no answer?
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: Fri, 04 May 2012 16:53:27 -0000

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:32:32AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> My preference is that the spec discuss the issue, propose hard-fail
> as an option, and explain that without hard-fail the benefits for
> usage 0 and 1 can be circumvented but that the client is no worse
> off than without DANE. It's important to emphasize that this is
> about usage 0 and 1, and that a different security analysis applies
> to types 2 and 3 (well, 3 certainly; I need to think about 2).

I agree with this.

> I would prefer that we not require hard fail while assuming some
> implementers will not follow our requirement,

I also strongly agree with this.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email