Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution
Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Sat, 12 March 2016 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 6CF3C12D6C2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:15:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dougbarton.us
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 leRJVg9H4Sr3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:15:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [208.79.90.218]) (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 6A4B312D691 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:15:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.179] (104-180-168-206.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [104.180.168.206]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA34D3A0BD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:15:52 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dkim; t=1457813753; bh=b5nUMq/SmuFRGWbjuGXt/G5y+TRnMMSKsCCjfcTNcQc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=OPnNyRdViIMTXEtXn9ajAiHM3BoBLVsoH++T44ysBGfrqwzVB+oTPC3QpbJWoijjk ETFVbYBAG7CgQSmfNrQ7yg1jY1jPtvdHSrZxHRICIGAmHg4MQlu+3Jc4uHJl5RKU6I QRdoZ+USPEWuTGJLzodyuMowE2mG/sZyqhOVNBmM=
Subject: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <56DC484F.7010607@cs.tcd.ie> <3470AB158222ED0ECAF2CAEA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Openpgp: id=E3520E149D053533C33A67DB5CC686F11A1ABC84
Message-ID: <56E478F7.5070907@dougbarton.us>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:15:51 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3470AB158222ED0ECAF2CAEA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/G5E9zlxkuSTcwWDe7IwPbgy_Sz0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:15:56 -0000
On 03/12/2016 01:00 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > The IETF should not be encouraging experiments on the public > Internet that could be harmful to the Internet or to existing > deployed applications, especially standards-track ones. Several > people with significant email operational experience have made > the claim that this experiment could be harmful to the > Internet's email infrastructure, if only by encouraging a > violation of a fairly explicit (and very important, IMO) > provision of SMTP. As far as I can tell from reviewing the > discussions, there has not even been effort to refute those > claims or explain why they are not relevant. Has anyone laid out the perceived dangers in an easily digestible format? I would be interested to see that discussion. Given that the DNS RR in question is something the end user has to explicitly request, the danger is not immediately obvious to me. Doug
- dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Stephen Farrell
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution E Taylor
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Stephen Farrell
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Treat model (was: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolut… John C Klensin
- Case distinctions as theoretical exercise (was: R… John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John Levine
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise Doug Barton
- Re: Threat model Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John R Levine
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Mark Andrews
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Warren Kumari
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise John Levine
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Stephen Farrell
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Hashing local-parts of addresses (was: dane-openp… ned+ietf