Re: [dane] Review of DANE SMTP draft

Viktor Dukhovni <> Mon, 17 March 2014 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFA31A0649 for <>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLgRhOnXPZAu for <>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B0D1A063B for <>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1034) id A3BAD2AB274; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:06:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:06:46 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dane] Review of DANE SMTP draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:06:58 -0000

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:34:07PM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:

>    2.  If the wildcard character is the only character of the left-most
>        label in the presented identifier, the client SHOULD NOT compare
>        against anything but the left-most label of the reference
>        identifier (e.g., * would match but
>        not or

I am aware of this SHOULD NOT.  The question is whether this is
the right behaviour for opportunistic DANE TLS.  There is no user
to "click OK", and if Postini-style wildcard certs are likely to
be employed or need to be employed, then perhaps the right choice
for SMTP is to tolerate multi-label wildcards.

I am not insisting one way or the other, just wondering whether
there is consensus.  Fortunately, there is a UTA draft on name
checks for SMTP, and its authors have invited me to pitch in.

Their draft defines wildcards to match a single label, and this
question is perhaps best dealt with on the UTA list (where I may
again run into Martin and the rest of our fine DANE crew, but it
seems to be a more natural forum for what is I think more of an
application question).

So most likely SMTP name checks will not specifically endorse
multi-label wildcards, but if it is OK with this group, I'd like
to move this specific issue to that forum.