Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution
Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Mon, 14 March 2016 21:18 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 5063512D791 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 yajf04IPKY1C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7973612D78E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 5628E284F45; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:18:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:18:28 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution
Message-ID: <20160314211828.GB6602@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <20160313171101.3215.qmail@ary.lan> <F4DDCAC0-ACDF-4FD9-978E-90F4349A0420@dukhovni.org> <D82585411EE24A700558FD25@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1603131922060.27864@bofh.nohats.ca> <2A69D7982E2992DED26AE5A6@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56E71C99.1000001@dougbarton.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56E71C99.1000001@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yGg2Nr0XNgdDjiC56JMXpfSEo5Q>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:18:31 -0000
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:18:33PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > In this scenario the PGP community has long (and I mean, for 20 years or so) > advised to ring the person and confirm their key fingerprint (and by > extension preferred e-mail address) over the phone. I don't see any reason > why the existence of a DNS mechanism would change that advice. Because opportunistic encryption won't happen under that requirement. While not all encryption of email will be opportunistic, it seems to me that part of the motivation for this experiment is to enable opportunistic encryption of email sent to people you'll never meet in person or necessarily be able to contact by means other than email. The way that PGP has been used for 20 years has not resulted in broad adoption of PGP. This experiment may well not do much better, (cue Phillip and mathematical mesh which could be what it takes to make real progress, but too early to tell), but it seems to me that it is definitely intended to facilitate encrypted first contact. -- Viktor.
- dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Stephen Farrell
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution E Taylor
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Stephen Farrell
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Treat model (was: Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolut… John C Klensin
- Case distinctions as theoretical exercise (was: R… John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John Levine
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise Doug Barton
- Re: Threat model Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John R Levine
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Paul Wouters
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Doug Barton
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Mark Andrews
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Warren Kumari
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise John Levine
- Re: Case distinctions as theoretical exercise Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution Stephen Farrell
- Re: dane-openpgp 2nd LC resolution John C Klensin
- Hashing local-parts of addresses (was: dane-openp… ned+ietf