[dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion
Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 15 March 2014 05:17 UTC
Return-Path: <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
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 4CC451A000E for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Q_oVoH0GfRIv for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9401A0002 for <dane@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id E08342AB22D; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:17:04 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140315051704.GY21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/tTK1wXXuvGJH8plYbuOupl7_7_0
Subject: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dane@ietf.org
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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:17:16 -0000
The SMTP draft specifies a digest algorithm agility protocol for DANE. In this thread it would be helpful to arrive at consensus around the proposal, or a modified proposal if a better approach is suggested. Once that's settled, we can briefly touch on which document is the right home for this protocol. Goal: * It should be possible for servers to publish TLSA records employing multiple digest algorithms allowing clients to choose the best mutually supported digest. Important barrier: * When two or more distinct objects (multiple certificates or multiple public keys) are published in TLSA records with multiple digest algorithms, it is not possible based on the TLSA records alone to partition the records by object instance, combining related records that are merely different digests of the same underlying object. * What this means is that clients can't tell whether ignoring all the records for a given weaker digest does not result in leaving out some objects which are only present with that digest. Design: * The burden of making it safe to disregard records with deprecated or in any case less preferred digest algorithms is placed on the TLSA record publisher. * If for each given usage and selector, each published object that appears with a non-zero (i.e. a digest) matching type appears with the *same set* of digests as all other objects with that usage and selector, then it is definitely safe for clients to disregard all records except those with strongest (per client configuration) algorithm. * The server MUST employ this approach to publishing its records. * The client SHOULD employ digest algorithm agility by ignoring all but the strongest non-zero digest for each usage/selector combination. Note, records with matching type zero play no role in digest algorithm agility. Open issue: * Suppose the server records are clearly in violation of the requirement, because the number of records for one of the digest algorithms is strictly greater than the (non-zero) number of records for some other algorithm. Should the client apply the agility algorithm anyway (server is to blame if this is not safe)? Or should it avoid using digest agility in this case? Note, avoiding the algorithm does not solve all possible problems. The digest values could be mistranscribed, or even though the counts are the same, the sets of underlying objects for some pair of algorithms might still not be identical. Larger question: * Is this the right agility protocol? It seems to me to be roughly the best we can do given the structure of TLSA records. -- Viktor.
- [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Wouters
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Wouters
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Wouters
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Martin Rex
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Mark Andrews
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Jim Schaad
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Scott Rose
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion (c… Scott Rose
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Wes Hardaker
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Peter Palfrader
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Mark Andrews
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Mark Andrews
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Peter Palfrader
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Mark Andrews
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Peter Palfrader
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Mark Andrews
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Mark Andrews
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Paul Wouters
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Peter Palfrader
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Wes Hardaker
- Re: [dane] Digest Algorithm Agility discussion Wes Hardaker