Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality

Nico Williams <> Tue, 13 April 2021 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70073A1CAA for <>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TyXml6311Bmi for <>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ED573A1CF0 for <>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC3A1830A4; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (100-96-16-47.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 860F7181E9B; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/6.1.1); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:44 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Turn-Wide-Eyed: 7e42e4df756a1b1a_1618329524808_1795445940
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618329524807:711654717
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618329524807
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387E88795D; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s=; bh=bWQm+NqBvEJpHbig5IytDCfqcdE=; b=k1xiyNg9O6q zggrvcFPv4st2Q/o6rr40f4igJLsQOAHgIkAxLAoDJOtcyE3m5SROERSNWpw6iLJ tZsZ++b8f2XY1nei+QtbKMoQhcsGdM9H3iA1L2nbUzo5af8yF4ixhs3oL7D/DPim eR2kinxVbMfCoOL0m1tKFOQPTRVcVUcE=
Received: from localhost (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 169E0881C6; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:58:39 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a84
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Andrew McConachie <>
Cc: Michael Thomas <>,
Subject: Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality
Message-ID: <20210413155838.GH9612@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20210412221435.GV9612@localhost> <> <20210412222748.GW9612@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:54 -0000

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:46:24AM +0200, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> There’s been too much focus on getting browsers to implement HTTPS/DANE.

Or not enough.

> These days HTTPS is used for all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with
> the web. Take the Fediverse for example. ActivityPub uses HTTPS for
> server-server communication in a manner similar to how MTAs use SMTP. There
> are plenty of other examples.

Thus there is now a DANISH mailing list, and who knows, we might end up
with a BoF and even a WG.

> My point is that if people want to see HTTPS/DANE deployments grow they
> should start hacking HTTPS/DANE validation into the numerous open source
> projects that act as HTTPS clients. Find communities of geeks to act as
> early adopters, and simply ignore the politics of large browser vendors as
> they’re obviously a lost cause.

That's certainly an option.

I think OpenSSL and other TLS implementations could have better DANE
ergonomics, for sure -- that may be a better place to start.

But SMTP has been a very good base for now because the application
exists, is widely deployed, greatly benefits from DANE, has significant
gubernamental support in Europe, etc.