Re: [ietf-smtp] ALPN

Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org> Wed, 28 July 2021 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
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 006AB3A1970 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 L3D7xHJi2fCX for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kiel.esmtp.org (kiel.esmtp.org [195.244.235.220]) (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 C172F3A196D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kiel.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by kiel.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.1.Alpha16.0) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1.2, cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S000000000006584500; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:26:31 +0200
Received: (from ca@localhost) by kiel.esmtp.org (8.16.0.41/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id 16SHQV53044842 for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:26:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:26:31 +0200
From: Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210728172631.GA24560@kiel.esmtp.org>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <20210710214357.911F71FF0F6B@ary.qy> <37b658f3-9ff1-bfda-333d-b2f15ee73443@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <37b658f3-9ff1-bfda-333d-b2f15ee73443@isode.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/gJhij91-iGmrXJEColMGevQt12k>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] ALPN
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:26:41 -0000

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> I think having separate allocations for them would be clean design.

Stupid question: what are the differences in the actual protocol
between SMTP and SUBMIT?

> However, ALPN seem to be intended for multiple protocols sharing the same
> IP/port. This doesn't seem to apply to SMTP/SUBMIT/IMAP/POP. Or am I missing
> the point of ALPN?

A possible hack is to redirect a HTTP connection to an SMTP server:
different ports / different protocols.
ALPN is supposed to prevent such "cross protocol" attacks.

Hence my question above: if there's no difference at the protocol
level, what would we gain having two different ALPN ids for SUBMIT
and SMTP?

Has anyone already applied at least for an id for SMTP?

Would it be as simple as this:

To: tls-reg-review@ietf.org
Subject: Request to register value in TLS Extensions: SMTP for ALPN

Please add SMTP to the list of
TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs
(this might have been requested by someone already?)

See also:
  draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-01.txt
  - Section 5 "Applicability Statement" lists "SMTP traffic".
  - Section 3.8 "Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation" says that the TLS
    must support - but nothing is said about the application layer actually
    making use.


-- 
Address is valid for this mailing list only, please do not reply
to it direcly, but to the list.