IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-00

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Fri, 19 May 2017 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28B1129461 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 k_qGyJmu57lA for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9966212945E for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v4JFRNcP009298; Fri, 19 May 2017 16:28:11 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=zz8fmdTH87Sp8MzSF5tnJkMttitZrycd2Qib5bz/YiM=; b=TYdujDIEpQtYbLLFL8e6i1MVGRVkCkrsw3y2ZyT528I0H8B71CtB5nzPOYR/5ZQaqJTc Rie9Wj6RtDJSpRB2XT5SkNwz2zwpbfCrpnJBjpzYBpyagLjOLmHbgjjvo7Blu38XQ5Y6 h8GU3QoE7NJJL1dPL01rPBTbwISgJgCZQgJvVpngCWSkwkKvMqx7O7TrxUPJedwT1zDZ s3kk+cxInxRFj3pFO1OPA+FNvTs8g+Bo0s1XE5ZB01WmVjLb9MT1g4IEZmmWWspBKv2K uXkVnzn0cqDJqUZE/aGqwYbNVlPPTcWPdI8IlTX9gC5u4aDuTRJhbvOiXIlV4sYR5WMC 0Q==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 ([96.6.114.87]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2ahdvfrj5q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 May 2017 16:28:10 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v4JFPn0F008451; Fri, 19 May 2017 11:28:09 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2adwfvt7pq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 May 2017 11:28:09 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 19 May 2017 08:28:07 -0700
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 19 May 2017 11:28:07 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, "dcrup@ietf.org" <dcrup@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-00
Thread-Index: AQHS0JZPa6MFSHAU0E2PcZUdKc0X+qH73o+AgAAcV4CAAAMVgP//yO4w
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:28:06 +0000
Message-ID: <b4089f9898264ce8a638605fcb1f93a8@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <20170519143049.4908.qmail@ary.lan> <B0689C30-3B55-49AB-892D-D0923831961D@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <B0689C30-3B55-49AB-892D-D0923831961D@kitterman.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.40.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-19_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705190096
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-19_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705190096
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/JTP5eo-TYQxuJyZ3Vgg90CG0C1k>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-00
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:28:14 -0000

> Until new signing key management/publishing or crypto achieve similar
> successful verification rates to what's currently fielded, they aren't suitable
> replacements.

ECC keys are already comparable.
 
> For anything that requires code changes on the part of verifiers, it's going to
> take years before enough support new functionality that the d can be
> dropped.  What do people do in the meantime?

This WG is chartered to do a couple of things:  document what should be done now, and giving advice.  I think Scott should write up a draft and offer it for adoption as it's clearly in-scope.  I think the existing "new crypto" should use new ECC based signatures and also, if necessary as a middle step, approach how to do RSA 2K.  Given DNS TXT contraints, I think it makes sense to have RSA 2K be a separate document from "ECC for DKIM."

Does this make sense to the WG members?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email