[dane] direction of effort (was: Re: Second WGLC draft-ietf-dane-smime)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 21 November 2016 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 895FD129A68 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:49:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 xH3LDCmRHLT6 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:49:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8643C12957B for <dane@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 06:49:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010CDBE58; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:49:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3U3QviWQtuR7; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:49:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F8A4BE4C; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:49:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1479739748; bh=QZyM54Iv+8JL05v8Jz6U1KVkFEi864l2Vft3jvkXYGI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=2ae7HDbbgJRt/CjfFDEjhBfyhwDkXeAwK/rNAJwtIEohYA3Uyb4ZoSwGzQgbDxsA6 upPkGF4NpK1bxwNPZuXEFcMYY1XZOoQSmkzZNiay1yQiYuHtFeYAF+9E2aVdkWoi3z GkaBTiuD7Gj2c6j+GlwmL4a/ePXgiH9try+OjPzI=
To: "Garfinkel, Simson L. (Fed)" <simson.garfinkel@nist.gov>, Dane WG <dane@ietf.org>
References: <1479102464.995918272@apps.rackspace.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1611170410140.28374@bofh.nohats.ca> <D96EB1EE-A7C6-4C21-B1AC-1D0A5F8547E8@rfc1035.com> <CADyWQ+EC4v5U1tcw3OTd7j2D0KNWveNhsUSGc6c=NvX9VhtRLg@mail.gmail.com> <42510095-2182-422E-8A47-1EF3181B16F3@nist.gov>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <1d348f05-ab84-ada8-a8fd-9fba59f2c2b1@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:49:08 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <42510095-2182-422E-8A47-1EF3181B16F3@nist.gov>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000503030801050807040501"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/wIchY1fUrqK0UNUSe4dPxgUK6To>
Subject: [dane] direction of effort (was: Re: Second WGLC draft-ietf-dane-smime)
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:49:14 -0000

Hiya,

I'm just curious...

On 21/11/16 14:33, Garfinkel, Simson L. (Fed) wrote:
> We continue to pursue and support R&D efforts to develop SMIME-based
> approaches to enterprise email security.   Having a stable reference
> will benefit those efforts.

Is there a particular reason to try focus on enterprises
here? I know that's where we started out with smime but
I'm not sure it's a useful target these days. Wouldn't it
be more likely more effective if we (for some "we") tried
to get the largest mail providers to provide some form(s)
of interoperable e2e email security? If that happened, (*)
then I suspect many more enterprises would just re-use that
than would ever deploy something by/for themselves. And if
we don't end up with e2e email security at the major mail
providers, then it'll probably not happen within many
enterprises either. (IOW, maybe the focus on enterprises
as a target for e2e mail security is a bit 20-th century? :-)

(*) Yes, there are a bunch of reasons why this is not
at all likely to happen. However, if we direct our efforts
elsewhere that is one more nail in that coffin.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I've nothing against the planned experiment here.