Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-07.txt>

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 18 February 2016 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F651B32C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=no
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 6tfqBO5_Bmsv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 6CF771B32D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3q5Lxt1n9Xz3Ps for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:24:50 +0100 (CET)
X-OPENPGPKEY: Message passed unmodified
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Na16EFWwqR4r for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:24:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:24:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4791B61A5E7B; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:24:42 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 4791B61A5E7B
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443EC27FCB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:24:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:24:42 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-07.txt>
In-Reply-To: <20160216224341.4620.qmail@ary.lan>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1602172221020.27439@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20160216224341.4620.qmail@ary.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LFD 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oY6OVMQTgdxHhvoHhjq-at_pbgs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 03:24:57 -0000

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, John Levine wrote:

>>>>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moore-email-addrquery-01
>
>> Unfortunately, the draft is useless for end-to-end encryption, as it
>> relies on a clean path from the client to the recipient's SMTP server ...
>
> I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to read the draft,
> particularly section 4.  No, it does not depend on a clean path from
> the MUA to the recipient MTA.

    This section defines a service extension to the Mail Submission
    Protocol [RFC6409] which can be used by an authenticated, authorized
    client to query an SMTP server on port 25 for information about an
    email address.  This is intended only as a workaround for port 25
    blocking, so the extension is minimally tailored for that purpose.

So if my ISP is blocking port 25, I am forced to ask my ISP if the
remote party could accept encrypted email and to which key?

It is not "end to end" encryption, if the ISP can change the outcome.

So again, the above draft does not provide a workable solution for
the openpgpkey draft.

Paul