Re: [ietf-smtp] Public Key Look Up

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 11 May 2021 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 11C5A3A1265 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 vCEEJpr_GIsJ for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 0378D3A1263 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2021 04:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1620733702; bh=2pwe6bkuIftSGcPDv2ozpbJ5B+wFVLBNSK0kb1B7f9I=; l=1081; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DdtOEhoJBe7WvSPX1TgbaLGTaE7JZ4n0CBC12TrfW+xYklNrTI7/Kf3UbGCCwXJQV CSyASRwr4X4Fpp7AmqwcJyg3WGu3kHa3KVKtbI4GqGdhanHaY2OXumQIvRg6beLuOw cK7kCqk9frdZq1JyR+zkrty62py9whROR14vQFc25BfzHBEwLSJChxSJLBllh
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC02A.00000000609A6F06.0000452D; Tue, 11 May 2021 13:48:22 +0200
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20210508172602.CC09D72BE50@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <69c31dc0-f9b4-d983-e3e5-345773f27211@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 13:48:20 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210508172602.CC09D72BE50@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/_4eR7MLnzmhAWvJ9IuYIw1FkO60>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Public Key Look Up
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, 11 May 2021 11:48:32 -0000

On Sat 08/May/2021 19:26:02 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> It appears that John C Klensin  <john-ietf@jck.com> said:
>> FWIW, also note that ideas of putting user or mailbox names (not
>> just host names) into the DNS to support a variety of things has
>> been around since the early design of the DNS.
> 
> I'd forgotten about RFC 7929 which purports to put PGP keys
> in the DNS.  [...]
> 
>> I want to stress that I don't think this is a terrible idea,
>> especially if it were used to retrieve keys for S/MIME or PGP
>> use rather than inventing yet another mechanism.
> 
> I think it's a terrible idea both because it puts the keys in the wrong
> place and the reasons you gave, extensions are optional which means
> not implemented.


I'm not clear why a domain's MX would be the wrong place.  A similar idea is to 
store the keys at a domain's well-known place, so as to get them via https. 
The draft also includes a mail-based protocol to update the web key directory.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-koch-openpgp-webkey-service


Best
Ale
--