Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 15 March 2016 16:28 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 6959D12DB33 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 IpgOJ6rBSOXW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45BD312D505 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k12so30212681lbb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=Lksp9bNClyNdDbCICkfwOcm3RiPAFSFGQFGbU6alb8Q=; b=L3Utmz1yFmIV5mWYp4E/QwFPvsFrbvf65uA1iMs82m3D87wPb7OjxHNWclj1QMJjOJ kd1xPpJdXZOFaB+W4MItorzxwLf/4g4Su+7QkgLUvLjoBrcQy+sjn8WXPzhh8RtSFoDn G+RCdoTWHCcyY9b1N3d6PX7g5cb5VSQ5fV2xWVCp8bYImAFKThnqdqMomvGsCXWAQezt w40GDqG8d3IywnB/K4fQFIw8MygekCxBKEtckI2A2o4nYLbKRwsnHsI3myP90oGizsDd bdJqw7FdcVCY3wUyfrL2mBS8CdtKNWmf6kz3HrbM1aUvN126ZBU0QS+Ds78FXePgj95t jrhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Lksp9bNClyNdDbCICkfwOcm3RiPAFSFGQFGbU6alb8Q=; b=dBvbNWz5y1D8Od+O+1zHjDDqSsX6DvOlBeVkbcNtnsROu4GLbuNMRoG/YH+Ojp/zsN wAr6GAyIBf4Cq1jy7TZXkWlI4nJbIos0O6OW38aquWkzgBhHlMsB4aSMi+WQxzJ2kJ0U M8k0pA3bE8DLTUMNcVPd05AwUC4f0NyGrjvN7ALuwDSDrMgl+idtFWS6rBZjTjwB0RzW lpf9d0MrnA89fYxgA1DkTB5M8TD5NT7/EjHXqvgjj2c3PQ+jKga52+EYYNZgy3sOG11O LiUMWRr8AtDthZEGzEjG01X2HCIHoo9cUfq12M6JQuVuqK6blZtYHnAQYsWtYMYwpYrR 8EWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKkrXvPl26d1SBzy/OnXUC0yO8ygAKzh2GDDxxaYrh1ip7Dg76lWCzaztpUh1B4aRIFv5PBuqWDnOgyww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.17.70 with SMTP id m6mr10452181lbd.142.1458059292169; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.151.67 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56E61823.3070300@dougbarton.us>
References: <56DC484F.7010607@cs.tcd.ie> <3470AB158222ED0ECAF2CAEA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56E478F7.5070907@dougbarton.us> <44A260C9DBCF278440C93C0B@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <56E61823.3070300@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:28:12 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: zbHmPeQaTbA134RnoKUo9NNtvIQ
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwh9E2Q9sG5NNiENr0Zhghjf-EUa-ptM+dZYTnC-3XLzUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dFeZskg4ZhiFN01gg3wJxyLNAek>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:28:16 -0000
Oh come on. I am sure that you can sort the problem out with some sort of rule such as 'if case matters, use punycode for upper case'. It won't of course because people have been trying and failing to put account information into the DNS since the first DNS specs. The number of people who can configure DNS that way are maybe 5% of the total base. Big enterprises can't do it because the DNS is an infrastructure for describing hosts and they have other infrastructures for tracking people. Small enterprises can't do it because if you don't run your own DNS, you are left entering RRs through Web interfaces that only recently started supporting SRV. Let these folk get on with their experiment so that they can learn what others have learned before for themselves. The only way you could do that sort of thing with DNS records is if you were doing something like S/MIME and you had a LRA for the domain with its own root or intermediate cert and published an authenticator for that in the DNS. then you could put a link to your directory where account granular lookup can be performed in the DNS next to it. This fits S/MIME a lot better than OpenPGP because it is already hierarchical. Of course you can do the same thing with OpenPGP but the cost is that you are imposing the DNSSEC hierarchy on OpenPGP. This is not a solution, it is a distraction. But the sooner they get started on learning the problems themselves, the sooner we can get onto the next thing.
- 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 Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Case distinctions as theoretical exercise (was: R… John C Klensin
- Treat model (was: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolut… John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John Levine
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- 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