Re: Quic: the elephant in the room

Nico Williams <> Sat, 10 April 2021 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F9C3A1AA9 for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 SPiES3eOqWqB for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:39:43 -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 E3E613A1AA7 for <>; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3093424E4; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:39:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (100-96-17-216.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7D764342401; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:39:41 +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); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:39:41 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Snatch-Macabre: 5f54837b3365851b_1618087181829_1762096720
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618087181828:1068628816
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618087181828
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1A07E42F; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:39:41 -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;; bh=/7OIqPdEj+GL5G D3QlUq51gKmn4=; b=UAzj7N4QX3JNQ3aGdqRUDZRfwHpSPWq9FxkmWfJm3+L7nm XbYuH0rMLazliTYbom4kJ6T+4A7mLzxIGmVu3qRt+WejyTLgmWMeZ3h6y9qZ0ox2 XghN5OWCNqbSlrLamvMsWrkC60B1bLH3ch7xyCdtkN2gf7QBtGjiTC+DUpNvw=
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 718897E42D; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:39:36 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a30
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Michael Thomas <>
Subject: Re: Quic: the elephant in the room
Message-ID: <20210410203934.GH9612@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <20210410175712.GF9612@localhost> <> <20210410195048.GG9612@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
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: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:39:48 -0000

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:59:34PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Let me ask a pointed question: if we used DANE+DNSSec do we have confidence
> in the security of the solution? I think we'd have to have a lot of
> confidence in both that they are really ready for prime time.

I do, for the reasons I gave.  It can't be worse than WebPKI, that's for
sure.  At least in a pre-post-quantum world.  In a PQ world I suspect
we'd want to have something more akin to a PKI + Needham-Schroeder to
optimize PQ PK.

I think I would prefer a single-root PKIX PKI with name constraints to
DNSSEC/DANE.  Perhaps we can still get that by getting registries/
registrars to operate name-constrained CAs, and replace WebPKI with a
DNS-parallel PKI.  But at this point DNSSEC/DANE seems much more
realistic as a way to get to a single-root name constrained PKI for
domainnames.  Also, DNSSEC can do secure denial of existence while PKIX
cannot because wheras DNSSEC is based on a directory (DNS), x.509/PKIX,
though it was meant to be used with directories (DAP) doesn't really
have a viable global directory scheme (imagine using LDAP as we use
DNS!), and doesn't have a directory that can do secure denial of
existence either.