IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [keyassure] Objective: Restrictive versus Supplementary Models

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Fri, 01 April 2011 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 622C13A69B5 for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 QG-umDm7+KGO for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80033A691A for <keyassure@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p317KJe9017798; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:20:19 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {4D958AA4-22-1B221DC2-FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:20:19 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:20:17 +0300
Thread-Topic: [keyassure] Objective: Restrictive versus Supplementary Models
Thread-Index: AcvwPUEZ40fnJTE3RWiWgGNoRXHURg==
Message-ID: <67E85313-0B69-4AAA-B2BE-BABA5363D148@checkpoint.com>
References: <201103311336.p2VDafum022751@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1104010316100.18318@newtla.xelerance.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.1104010316100.18318@newtla.xelerance.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "keyassure@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:18:42 -0000

On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Martin Rex wrote:
> 
>> To me, processing unsigned TLSA records is similar to
>> processing unsigned OCSP responses or unsigned CRLs.
>> I would not do the latter, and I'm in doubt that the former
>> is a good idea.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Paul

+1  (and it's also like an unsigned cert)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email