Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 C70073A1CAA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 TyXml6311Bmi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aye.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (aye.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.6]) (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 6ED573A1CF0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC3A1830A4; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-16-47.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.16.47]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 860F7181E9B; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.16.47 (trex/6.1.1); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:58:44 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
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 pdx1-sub0-mail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387E88795D; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=bWQm+NqBvEJpHbig5IytDCfqcdE=; b=k1xiyNg9O6q zggrvcFPv4st2Q/o6rr40f4igJLsQOAHgIkAxLAoDJOtcyE3m5SROERSNWpw6iLJ tZsZ++b8f2XY1nei+QtbKMoQhcsGdM9H3iA1L2nbUzo5af8yF4ixhs3oL7D/DPim eR2kinxVbMfCoOL0m1tKFOQPTRVcVUcE=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (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 <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com>
Cc: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality
Message-ID: <20210413155838.GH9612@localhost>
References: <YHOAzeOj1JaGdmsO@straasha.imrryr.org> <5e91c054-5935-df07-e8ba-09cc78f6c950@network-heretics.com> <YHPSP8Kij2K4v7qQ@straasha.imrryr.org> <82c5fcc6-b419-6efb-b682-b5dbb32905e2@network-heretics.com> <585D8590-472B-4CBC-8292-5BE85521DD76@gmail.com> <a6545baf-b15e-3690-d7b5-be33c4078e02@mtcc.com> <20210412221435.GV9612@localhost> <0755b70e-cc8e-3404-73cd-51950b3d7e53@mtcc.com> <20210412222748.GW9612@localhost> <26BBCA02-AC18-476B-926E-9AC37A7FBBE2@depht.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <26BBCA02-AC18-476B-926E-9AC37A7FBBE2@depht.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eFT46pYqJSsTnQLIJi_3rj_pqUA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 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.