IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org> Mon, 07 October 2019 00:23 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 6C04B1200D8 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 bB9nIRPN3-MR for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (zardoc.esmtp.org [75.101.48.117]) (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 2D9041200CE for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x2.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.1.Alpha13.1) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1.2, cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S00000000003DCB0300; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:23:48 -0700
Received: (from ca@localhost) by x2.esmtp.org (8.14.6/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id x970Nm8l023409 for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:23:48 -0700
From: Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191007002348.GA23742@x2.esmtp.org>
Reply-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910062009420.35480@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.368.1910062009420.35480@ary.qy>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/kuP8ll2PYOxMhI7YQ0OWFVi8wYg>
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 00:23:50 -0000

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019, John R Levine wrote:

> What's wrong with MTS-STS defined in RFC 8461?

It requires an HTTPS server, thus adding an extra service and moving
the "trust" problem to CAs (AFAICT).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email