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

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Wed, 13 January 2016 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.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 260FD1B2C48 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ZiqYtfEpl7Hc for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD201B2C47 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 6so366570344qgy.1 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:52:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=DdXv5fqJVEL2rgyC+XOjXIk8QUwtNuZECIebLOjNkBk=; b=cLHH06o0BpOIBFDfrckDNvlSlxJgWU6N+huQodK4ik/q5cXHlFj/ew52hO5+BQNP24 EgJJPU3e8vJtSUUxfrOK9Rlf27TthssemmCTTgBhCxFw3n7NbF+PT+rztGS/tbSxhorU QdOIGUYJCWr6+PvU4X7k2qpsCJbI2R3qsxdepDXUkhzdeDdRA64/5ZxU5kwjjgSr2SLx X9eESCo0YbZAvdUW7G7AU34f6NY8qDs2KbU2awOn4oqOn3j6gI+QAh9zwWSGQsulMFEJ SMUeLuTQ3X2kH2Yj+IsslS82H1AmncmHnQk5GiIcELk/vovXMJD1q9+9SPDY04x0k4uF zAGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DdXv5fqJVEL2rgyC+XOjXIk8QUwtNuZECIebLOjNkBk=; b=UmLjDTGKAVgLosx4AFatQL/hfsP9NCNvfK1VJGKFEz8i8kAfkDz/SD831chZGEsV3m guKPrVjEq1/c0mWwfhH+DwAoa8VaJq80EEUVitbw2zO5RKWdTuvKhQlYn0suvmoebqRp RIthqohPzrw8Mje4R/ZB/k6nF7POZmVkRU+Sk/MfpfW7Z0gNRbNOrxB41TuB5PN9IJ7z Iqpdmy9oxMQRH/3U1PVPsuF561FE285uXVVlEIsOjFS+9pgm8/zR3upwzVniJBpQ4NWh qMo/BnvN0oQPhm6RsZwDWQ/3Tj7HIUXODnoJPQpWf8NkVU2VdLL4sXR1ueQmB6e9V/ut jJQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlIILWzu0R62QyaCZpcsbtjGxRlkEVD0O5a/68lJ+X4oikKtkFVWRl/tL11RjICEOli8Z28O36fZGjL8oqPJO35qPgQaQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.175.7 with SMTP id v7mr7821123qhv.103.1452653556478; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.102.9 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:52:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C444ACCC-3273-48FE-84DA-2E910C6F756E@dukhovni.org>
References: <CAHPuVdXYWoD5bZubAu5pEe18sfr69Nat=gp_7iagcVrAgTkY=g@mail.gmail.com> <20160113013152.54184.qmail@ary.lan> <CAHPuVdWC-Si0O2zpr2r7Ucdk9MpU6aPFBcOPn-z_Jpydz_TD7g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1601122110070.3339@ary.lan> <C444ACCC-3273-48FE-84DA-2E910C6F756E@dukhovni.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:52:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdVAV8zny6OTx0HAvWrTKG7-EJa-xDM6cm72Z=aq-a+GzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
To: "<dane@ietf.org>" <dane@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a29ea37395805292e4315
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/sWPMCuF_izAwrTvD4O3p1g64qPo>
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 02:52:39 -0000

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
wrote:

> >
> > On Jan 12, 2016, at 9:32 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> >
> > They've appeared under transport names for the past 15 years, which
> means that people have expectations about how they're used which I would
> not casually ignore.
>
> And yet client identities are not really transport-specific.
>
> >
> > There are a lot of other prefixed names floating around the DNS.  If
> someone attempted to use a client name like _spf or _sip or _domainkey or
> _dmarc or _adsp or _vouch they and their users would experience an eternity
> of pain from name collisions.
>
> Only if there are TLSA records for those names.
>

Right.

Also recall that the proposed owner name is: _service.[client-domain-name].
So a zone operator can define client domain name structures in a way that
can address any namespace collision issues they wish to avoid. Presumably,
an "_spf.device1.dept.example.com" TXT record would be about SPF rules
pertaining to device1.dept.example.com, so there is likely not an issue with
it co-existing with a client TLSA record at that same name.

-- 
Shumon Huque