IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 36F611B3545 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:04:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 7y5iZqAUb_QQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3B6C1B3538 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB28A2070F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:45 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=nnTvhh5CW7aI8cn jlqYWBc8Ln2E=; b=DnmqyPhG6REMiLGlPuP8oYEaNEB0RdAjEY5z4GA/N1jqUPV BxKDsr75pIAx+ZRcipZQFAai451GWyzNLBthITAHLC3Z3x6IJ1GGuUt9tt31+d7C LnHTupsoKaDo5Wq/a45lXzGkz2X9JajQXjmgSL0pXzopjq7dtAH5X7guIpzY=
X-Sasl-enc: WAI/fwbhqKBMlMDgYKIDk5nW46Mgc+fZj5CkT69thtbM 1455624285
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 603796800F1; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-07.txt>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160215192903.3510.qmail@ary.lan> <0962861D-5338-463C-8D3E-7D576E8FC883@dukhovni.org>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <56C31036.9000007@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:04:06 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0962861D-5338-463C-8D3E-7D576E8FC883@dukhovni.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sMuGAPqk5YeYcJpF3iB6yzyIiA8>
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: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:04:49 -0000

On 02/15/2016 04:04 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2016, at 2:29 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are perfectly reasonable ways to do DANE-secured lookups of
>> mailbox keys.  A simple one would be a per-domain SRV or URI record
>> that points at an RFC 4387 key server, with its certs secured by TLSA.
>> It's just as secure, just as DANE-ful, and has none of the semantics
>> and scaling problems of trying to shove mailbox keys into the DNS.
>> Its realistic security is better, since the mailbox names don't get
>> relayed through DNS caches of unknown snoopiness.
> Sadly Keith Moore's addrquery draft seems to have stalled:
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moore-email-addrquery-01
>
> I agree that was a promising direction...  Yes I quibbled over
> the details, but certainly not with the intention of blocking it,
> rather I wanted it to be more realistically deployable...
It's not dead.   I'm still working on it and will try to get a revision 
out this coming weekend.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email