IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [keyassure] Objective: Restrictive versus Supplementary Models

Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@xelerance.com>
X-Original-To: keyassure@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: keyassure@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C6E3A6B0A for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0FgVHDgmbQSZ for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newtla.xelerance.com (newtla.xelerance.com [193.110.157.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0943A6A8C for <keyassure@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tla.xelerance.com (tla.xelerance.com [193.110.157.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by newtla.xelerance.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9EEC5A0; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:40:29 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikS3qg=r30bff8C-KGMSHOpgK=oJft3qEMnM28M@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.1103310338300.4460@newtla.xelerance.com>
References: <AANLkTik1Uzd8XSZzopBBDHywrhSjsBQYxC91BZXdkMwg@mail.gmail.com> <201103301818.p2UIIbcA016146@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <AANLkTikS3qg=r30bff8C-KGMSHOpgK=oJft3qEMnM28M@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: keyassure@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [keyassure] Objective: Restrictive versus Supplementary Models
X-BeenThere: keyassure@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Key Assurance With DNSSEC <keyassure.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyassure>, <mailto:keyassure-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/keyassure>
List-Post: <mailto:keyassure@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:keyassure-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyassure>, <mailto:keyassure-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:38:55 -0000

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> It's obviously better if DANE is DNSSEC secured, but it's not dangerous
> if they aren't signed, since that just brings you back to where you were
> without DANE.

That assumes DANE is an addition to PKIX. Once you assume it is a replacement
for PKIX, you can't have DNSSEC being optional. (If you don't agree, let's
have coffee at starbucks and use their wifi :)

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email