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