Re: [keyassure] Objective: Restrictive versus Supplementary Models

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 299773A6AD5 for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fjA4oRamvXXN for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629E83A6826 for <keyassure@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2421843iwn.31 for <keyassure@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.131.7 with SMTP id ho7mr2791037icc.171.1301557808851; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.217.2 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1103310338300.4460@newtla.xelerance.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=5ea+wxUoZWwZEd1H4JBfOAR+5x1VY9s_wHtcZ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 07:48:30 -0000

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> wrote:
> 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 :)

The context has been lost here, but I was talking about the cert lock
application, not the alternate CA application.

-Ekr