Re: Why are mail servers not also key servers?

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A750129557 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=abh9MUxl; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=NneWgz6Y
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 AI8oluwz7JnI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BBA2129463 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 58209 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2017 20:49:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=e35f.58fa7076.k1704; bh=Dp9/VD/g5LzB8fjxp2vrKWQToUivHZwiDkrQKLYq9IE=; b=abh9MUxlTliNldZ8Z2hg3ad2oaqHhCNWbf/Vplr7vinCR1UKRqUOEXmznyGaxHSAlRojUbTnaD7rqf1hV/buV2Emn8+0XP/yvWoKsTimOPg1hjweYhWele7YjKlBrRZfjfLiF6KrVJEHY2Fgvv4Q9ucPoiDm1zJq91ZcjiQhLYWBq7+NgyACrB6xQK78tYQD+Ie5FSza4kzkfP6EbxtgUALagDTBQc057npuYWGCN5geXor/SAe4SC10rIMyIVYy
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=e35f.58fa7076.k1704; bh=Dp9/VD/g5LzB8fjxp2vrKWQToUivHZwiDkrQKLYq9IE=; b=NneWgz6YC+u9pM4UflmvNeetQpihUUpskkqhtKVAwS2EBle5Ept7Wr46KSn/gIsyTTQFDLSFUQzVGBKwDC4AOQAQp5bzi82Sf2U9oJYs9kSZ61ENE92NBTC/ex+xLpkvFI6yAHejB/1eK5TMuiD/W8dFlFiuCKDO9gLhQl6vw/wGlZGs0kAOqeuE940/Z/FNPk6uUemXGXYCIN9xM1sxZkpUyff3tYdxLItyXXkQ3P6OnD0bruJTx0cEE4W4Jokr
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 21 Apr 2017 20:49:58 -0000
Date: 21 Apr 2017 16:49:58 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1704211647470.55442@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Why are mail servers not also key servers?
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwivmUDD8Fjihiw7moFFphfL6RcT_7EFOPh7gDhvgT7M6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FC831208-97A3-4F1B-A37C-F8646C3FB208@gmail.com> <20170420205434.24400.qmail@ary.lan> <CAAFsWK1FtqM2GqTkCWzgm-L87KoXGFW+yorRF-t===MycjR1Ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwivmUDD8Fjihiw7moFFphfL6RcT_7EFOPh7gDhvgT7M6A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (OSX 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2BNC4N3IHv4TpYl0hbioLQQkbTg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:50:02 -0000

> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>; wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to second the draft-bhjl-x509-srv approach as preferable as

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Again, how does the draft advance on the existing RFC?
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4386

I don't see what the connection is.  RFC 4386 tells you how to find an 
LDAP or OCSP server.  This is a profile of RFC 4387, which tells you how 
to find a key server for S/MIME and PGP keys, how to retrieve keys by 
e-mail address from it, and optionally how to check whether a domain has 
signed the keys it returns.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly