Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 13 March 2016 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 866C112D529 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 jChZnwAQSJ5X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (static-65-175-133-137.cpe.metrocast.net [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DF112D770 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1afB9U-000AhD-3p for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:54:08 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:54:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution
Message-ID: <D82585411EE24A700558FD25@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <F4DDCAC0-ACDF-4FD9-978E-90F4349A0420@dukhovni.org>
References: <20160313171101.3215.qmail@ary.lan> <F4DDCAC0-ACDF-4FD9-978E-90F4349A0420@dukhovni.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RnoJ0AMDteO-vhNRjJCfiRSmrp0>
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: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:54:14 -0000


--On Sunday, March 13, 2016 1:48 PM -0400 Viktor Dukhovni
<ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 1:11 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Given that the DNS RR in question is something the end user
>>> has to  explicitly request, ...
>> 
>> Uh, what?  The DNS is under control of the domain owner, not
>> the end users. 
> 
> A misreading of the comment.  The "end-user" in question is
> the one doing the lookup, not the one whose key is published.
> Paul is making no claim about how the published key got
> there...

I understood that, and I assume John L. did too.  The problem,
again, is that we are conflating several issues, including
whether the right key is going to be found to correspond to a
given address and whether and how it can be trusted.  A
problematic domain owner (and, unless the nominal domain owner
is paying a lot of attention, a problematic registrar or other
third-party domain administrator) can provide bogus,
self-serving keys.

"Making no claim about how the key got there" is almost
certainty true, but that misses the point.  The document more or
less claims that, if one finds a key in the DNS associated with
a particular mailbox string, then that key has some association
with the person who owns/controls (not necessarily the same
thing) that mailbox.  -07 was actually more clear about the
issues with that than -08 is, but neither goes far enough, IMO,
in detailing the risks that the community perfectly well knows
about.

The requirement is still that the I-D be clear about either
known risks, restricting the experiment to those who are very
familiar with those risks and accept them, or both.

    john