IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [keyassure] WebID at W3C and keyassure

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 11 February 2011 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 51BFC3A69EA for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:19:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 wbAlUOX24x67 for <keyassure@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B57C3A6838 for <keyassure@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so1434469gwb.31 for <keyassure@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:20:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KWNtx+4/S6z1Gcnwqi4Tk4KbfOv3RV/akqTXlT0i68k=; b=hO+dX6Gdkex4BNTyj1kxeC3apfMKIpokGwyr1jf1evyR2QHG3OwnlzyjqNpMWLmcbf gvGAKJmJecfUzj+tA8NKezY+xYudOfoBYjOEUZPAvtl2gbZ/0RxHYLU7kkSlNO1elL5q NwM2q47GCPcFw9KS0jmOhXSGkmGCoQbWXplGI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=POEVOTfkj0khKY1bFHQwKCnkgLUiE8Z8Vtw7q7R332T/CiHEzUny91iOKmjRHGM5o5 6kJhPPkmYlg12WubQoyhMaZ2aFNNK+RJvt5q/4OHQdLcwCbhT0PpOST4H3yjHi2MLMHE 3JWyG75HaAjRJ9BBx98ZaGSa+qXs3UD35YUXc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.168.17 with SMTP id q17mr482875ane.40.1297466405208; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.244.38 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:20:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D5CC602E-DFEE-47C3-8678-D5D594503C26@kirei.se>
References: <57722B1C-F0AE-42D9-8ABE-30223D4F0D51@bblfish.net> <201102102017.p1AKH7iR028493@new.toad.com> <19409B47-4FB1-4705-B670-5D2570EBE76B@bblfish.net> <4D54876A.4090302@vpnc.org> <7E533869-1CCF-4256-84D4-E15578BAE4E1@bblfish.net> <AANLkTimz=e_E3GOcSCgkSW_2tWtD74QXaWN+_9=fA6bL@mail.gmail.com> <D5CC602E-DFEE-47C3-8678-D5D594503C26@kirei.se>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:20:05 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinGdDCadUPL0-JVfMh7AfTVe4=6TGKtFdKod5_-@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Jakob Schlyter <jakob@kirei.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6441dce30c2f6049c09f09c"
Cc: keyassure@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [keyassure] WebID at W3C and keyassure
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, 11 Feb 2011 23:19:51 -0000

The RFC published in 2006

The idea does not appear to have found much success, I am not aware of any
application that obtains S/MIME certs in that fashion.

I think those facts suggest that the DNS is not a good choice for per-user
information.


While that approach may work for small time personal domains, the DNS as
deployed and administered does not make that approach a practical one for an
organization of even moderate size.


On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jakob Schlyter <jakob@kirei.se> wrote:

> On 11 feb 2011, at 15.14, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> > DNS is not an appropriate place to store attributes specific to '
> user@example.com'.
>
> IMHO, that's a pretty strong statement - RFC 4398 (section 3.2) does not
> agree with you at all.
>
>        jakob
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email