Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution

John C Klensin <> Sun, 13 March 2016 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866C112D529 for <>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jChZnwAQSJ5X for <>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DF112D770 for <>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1afB9U-000AhD-3p for; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:54:08 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:54:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160313171101.3215.qmail@ary.lan> <>
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: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:54:14 -0000

--On Sunday, March 13, 2016 1:48 PM -0400 Viktor Dukhovni
<> wrote:

>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 1:11 PM, John Levine <>
>> 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

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.