IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] why are we reinventing mta-sts ?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 08 October 2019 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DE8120227 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7wmZG2HYhVYF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (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 DC0FA1200FE for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:44466) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1iHnke-000lG7-8L (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:34:00 +0100
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:34:00 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
cc: Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, SMTP Discuss <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5b90d08f-8277-6c50-d069-4709880f932f@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1910081229230.8949@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20191007162824.64ED8BB6CA1@ary.qy> <53D231EA-D749-4437-9759-6F1B3ECC6142@network-heretics.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910071506250.38715@ary.qy> <CAOEezJQt-6GNJ08MsZ5PUOBD6mf9CBXc8duu7xVLDxirzeqauQ@mail.gmail.com> <5b90d08f-8277-6c50-d069-4709880f932f@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="1870870841-1898750494-1570534440=:8949"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/6hyRkoZwn9ddEmnJc0-UNrMb-U8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] why are we reinventing mta-sts ?
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 11:34:09 -0000

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:

> I was thinking more in terms of a new DNS RR type:
>
> example.com      DOTNS ns1.example.com

There are interesting problems with using extra delegation records to
bootstrap DoT:

The DNS protocol has to have special logic for every RRtype that appears
at a delegation, so you would need some kind of signalling to indicate
that this is OK for all the parties involved. (I have not thought about
the details of what would be required...)

You also need to upgrade EPP so that registrars can get the extra records
into the registry database so that the registry can put them in the TLD.
And then wait an indefinite time for the registrars to upgrade their
customer-facing interfaces so that you can tell them about the extra
records.

It's very awkward.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
German Bight, Humber: Southwest 5 to 7. Moderate or rough. Showers. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email