IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . .

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05C412962E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 AHad4Ctsl0LM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22e.google.com (mail-ua0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e]) (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 CC0C112962D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f54so51799314uaa.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j7wKHMHg4D7YQEoeQcH7VoaLZU0ojNkWyjnqnlrOh54=; b=OMoHY37U3rDCcCL0zCkW/9mJsa1AWKTE06bzWOlY1TlJCRvraRejioiCYv+sbwb65X Qh6rkbNUpSg+YEWxpR7NZOwuKys+12kj9ao/U664ca9lEjw0QDu7tggh1QkqEksduRcJ fb0VgmG1KBF5K8GwvTzgg3QDnnRymBINC109AZkYKPxY7c3gzPe85As9eHNJxXWnO501 07KYOoIRzaqaXimwh+XhnNZlWbYKYmCiz7jUszc4STs5il5rwHC81ZQAx3onlNAnfIPN mRAsbm7Az0WHNymmi5CfgiBHtTBsofhOOJ0DK14gzT7PzWItRY1uGIaBtoWGddjapKpv M1jw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j7wKHMHg4D7YQEoeQcH7VoaLZU0ojNkWyjnqnlrOh54=; b=bFLx8jxrs/yy25nq3T1+Ib0PiY7CyjfQv6LJLePN3r8ZXxRJY4KgJy+krPQwEzhMuM cL9N9v35tIyB+/IDP/O2NwSDw8MWo3pwvkyvIDNpcZ4xwMZ3LgTYd3fNOH4VMAa/p13H 4pe0PR/eQs+5VYYWaXkN1FyIMCSwAJKLjJssJPrSIIcGvA4M5KF6tGhKKefZRq4AmrQu hhAc4rXCjcYqbkvdJ34wGUSRJYciJ6TW8uk4pgtU1fAwta1EpVbaZzxMgjsJoFcU1tyG UtPFBHRQwgZN+czgQNc5gkYgI/L5/n9DU4MZEH//ENkr5Gf2IbguRT6ukVFjP3KYpYsJ Dg8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0iWm7WQTFB/lAx5wLXxJtXnpRHh0Ct1qyEIP3Hna8RW8mUjBozTh461HRPhIA60Twoa4YSzKHg8CCWSw==
X-Received: by 10.176.84.76 with SMTP id o12mr2650403uaa.132.1489789346947; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.147.13 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170317002315.50000.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CAL0qLwZDCbP2tWAp6RH38jTdkZueH8WPTbwd6Kfjk6Y0csZEXg@mail.gmail.com> <20170317002315.50000.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:22:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa3-FoZ_winpgLBZ-cVeLuWhSKQ=90OHjyrF4dVOYN9=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b2df2d0a7dd054af49cfd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MnfM_Wwy5-EAD8cF5rPK76pLrng>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "Missed it by *that* much". . .
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:22:29 -0000

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:23 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <CAL0qLwZDCbP2tWAp6RH38jTdkZueH8WPTbwd6Kfjk6Y0csZEXg@mail.
> gmail.com> you write:
> >I'm not sure how you could go about registering key lengths.  What do you
> >have in mind?
>
> Come to DISPATCH and learn all about it.
>

Oh, don't you worry.  :-)

The general point is that DKIM's key advice is kind of stale -- 512 bit
> keys are
> too short, 1024 keys are OK now, but within the likely lifetime of this
> spec
> we'll need longer keys.  The obvious suggestion is 2048 except they don't
> fit in a single TXT record string, and way too much DNS web crudware(tm)
> doesn't handle multiple strings.
>
> Oh, and elliptic curve.
>

Sure; the existing registries are for hash algorithms and key types.
Obviously more of those could be added, or we could deprecate some
entries.  And I could see an "Updates" document changing what DKIM says
about supported or recommended key sizes, or amendments to these
registries.  But Kurt said something about creating an IANA registry of
supported key sizes, and I don't know what that would look like.

I'll find out in Chicago, I guess.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email