[dane] Consensus on the Hash vs Base32 discussion.

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 06 August 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 5EE091B3BD8 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 42mwWd3qnwsQ for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) (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 21B121B3C1E for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obnw1 with SMTP id w1so60363378obn.3 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 10:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=F4VDY1b96+m+xa5uhM4tBn5b9WTkDtEk5AGMt47P9rk=; b=fcxX7dhWpwCjc2ahBX+hacm4kdzS+x5FM/4akX+dhgzSUbj57rt1Qs1h7rpfCagvur K0TxuPk2NmIHRn1SA8/Sj/pWMT8APOjUPdmuVft/RdZm6/1rq01qVXPQxc5SkS+1wbbX NOZFWmfV6IHkPfKbM1qDD3g1kWtuIYceE7m/xz6tzHkMcCSUm+QGExXhyU7GfHvkSmIf 48ffa9yoy0Mocojg5DDiLErsYjoRTOF33nnVrSB1u9niFQqSYcaNi636Fznde3ofQR65 isjvfn4WLBqlRwOFwsd8jl/XsVIan1ARGEQnjMwmGhK+sAgcshdmLRe9NMvqPVyq2ihj 7ndw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXrXbDN6tEliysicxSjMaiIOyux1Hcu2yCJDoUXzThU+9Wlg23S5nERZ9wPFeDJO0PDFFd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.225.169 with SMTP id rl9mr2613915obc.54.1438880676359; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 10:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.232.1 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:04:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iKTt9-1W4BksunQoP5Wh1mRZPC9M-WiiBSWVmBD3z7omw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: "<dane@ietf.org>" <dane@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/tvu1gCcYfFh5IgDwcUkXPzG6uTY>
Subject: [dane] Consensus on the Hash vs Base32 discussion.
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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:04:53 -0000

Consensus has been hard to judge here, and seems to have evolved over
time, which is a sign that people have been looking at things from
different perspectives.

The chairs judge that the privacy arguments for the hashing solution
tip the scales in it's favor, so we are instructing the authors to
keep the hashing text without doing any case folding.

These documents are experimental, largely because of the email address
encoding. It is entirely possible that deployment experiment this will
show that better choices exist - but, at least we have made a choice.

We would like to thank the Working Group and the authors in particular
for their patience and involvement in this (long) discussion.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf