Re: Quic: the elephant in the room

Michael Thomas <> Sun, 11 April 2021 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758283A2105 for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXkXW_pEzL2S for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298CA3A2101 for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l123so6730116pfl.8 for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=l2KFjzzl31USA6EdPB3zSlAx9/cVhzX2IIAS/KMa8W4=; b=YCBrrkfuevP9/SE6z1YIJNVLCX2QItI5vf7h5rM2mzD8zpx5VWTIrUxhDvbnOiRS7V UCTSDZzhG56kz4/jlTUTRiNZL7Xd1E799itG/le106p3U7YeHhktKGkxm1xwrKeFUQiS cW4PSrzcI/603rKaXPjwn9kJzikb9/9VSBrBvbFDbCO4scTrrIxRtBqWcYG+EqTKTek5 z8wiDdyzrT16eMIypf1KYYjZt8RlrWSZoS4rjMzPtKpCgz2hFAnK51fGJOARHW3FPHXi mSsQO2vR+Fqr/kkYmfzMaWkWUczEEt235reHa+r3RqMfnEbkHkZD2fVXhHKj0YUl/1aF oBnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=l2KFjzzl31USA6EdPB3zSlAx9/cVhzX2IIAS/KMa8W4=; b=my5W/3i2HjuQjTctgiU5eyr1LviE6wrRpvAsSH2Vk4IYwMUFgOC8RR8nIqRGfT05bn vXkjKHGfcKf5KP3IVEp9HimlZCyyEAT9vt7SClH9YiYzxseDXqNaEEpKEJ8hc1AhW1nR Mnc3vNW+2xwkEOr4zHfuV4v741nlktaY35aILpLSnMaMT4RTw5lgXtPu6qBS7M95UeAq zihV3bbP9QkbfRbB5v9wSmHwwg4oJcigrNhhV+VLSYIk2qZmTwt6LtSxc0GDfDY1Z3Uf w+hxT6TEVugqIXUOEtdXdXFs8UnmLXr4+PAAn7s6Bn0uy0JqqHm5qCCJB+1lJhsCXmwZ sqbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rAjHV9KoyzZu28YosO1ryJSRMW4pyJhdS4oOsNyIHjs6x+Zfi tr3zHgKKsy2IWJknDYWajguwp8PQVRaT4A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfg48YJXldjK2BmiftGxZF7+bU98I+g+DTGdrGWWJUtTjkarc42NDoF2pz1QKuMy9WRyv5Fg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:cfc4:0:b029:200:49d8:6f29 with SMTP id b187-20020a62cfc40000b029020049d86f29mr17904350pfg.45.1618099646036; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t184sm6463324pgt.32.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Quic: the elephant in the room
To: Nico Williams <>
References: <> <> <> <> <20210410175712.GF9612@localhost> <> <20210410195048.GG9612@localhost> <> <20210410203934.GH9612@localhost>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:07:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210410203934.GH9612@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:07:32 -0000

On 4/10/21 1:39 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:59:34PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Let me ask a pointed question: if we used DANE+DNSSec do we have confidence
>> in the security of the solution? I think we'd have to have a lot of
>> confidence in both that they are really ready for prime time.
> I do, for the reasons I gave.  It can't be worse than WebPKI, that's for
> sure.  At least in a pre-post-quantum world.  In a PQ world I suspect
> we'd want to have something more akin to a PKI + Needham-Schroeder to
> optimize PQ PK.
> I think I would prefer a single-root PKIX PKI with name constraints to
> DNSSEC/DANE.  Perhaps we can still get that by getting registries/
> registrars to operate name-constrained CAs, and replace WebPKI with a
> DNS-parallel PKI.  But at this point DNSSEC/DANE seems much more
> realistic as a way to get to a single-root name constrained PKI for
> domainnames.  Also, DNSSEC can do secure denial of existence while PKIX
> cannot because wheras DNSSEC is based on a directory (DNS), x.509/PKIX,
> though it was meant to be used with directories (DAP) doesn't really
> have a viable global directory scheme (imagine using LDAP as we use
> DNS!), and doesn't have a directory that can do secure denial of
> existence either.
My take on DNSSec is that I only understand some of the large contours 
but that I trust that IETF process would not produce something a 
complete flop from a technical standpoint, though that does happen too. 
But DNS is pretty damn important, so I hope the clue level looking it 
was intense. The biggest IETF failing is solving problems nobody needs 
solved. Maybe DANE can be a sleeper that was just ahead of its time.