Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered harmful

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 24 October 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45D711E83AF for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S103K20dj557 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B5211E820F for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0484C4100F; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:08:04 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <52697C8C.8040907@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:01:16 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CAPik8yaKaXRm3t3sepRHAFADCnOmdPjQC5-be3a8Xsr29965BQ@mail.gmail.com> <5266AC02.80506@cs.tcd.ie> <5267B862.6000105@isode.com> <5267BAD9.8070702@cs.tcd.ie> <526960FF.3050902@stpeter.im> <CA+9kkMAVP4sW6_fQc5rvzS8zomcvyz5hddM7Hobbw+MMC7y1Ew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAVP4sW6_fQc5rvzS8zomcvyz5hddM7Hobbw+MMC7y1Ew@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "<perpass@ietf.org>" <perpass@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered harmful
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for discussion of the privacy properties of IETF protocols and concrete ways in which those could be improved. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:01:52 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/24/13 1:43 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
> <stpeter@stpeter.im <mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> I think SMTP TLS BCP would be a good idea. I think it should
>>> be independent of DANE, because of the status of the DANE
>>> document. I would be happy to work on it (and would be happy to
>>> collaborate with PSA to discuss similarities and differences).
>> 
>> Great. Let's talk in YVR about how to get that done so its a
>> real BCP that gets followed in the wild. If someone else is up
>> for helping I guess contact Alexey.
> 
> Before this thread emerged, I suggested the idea of having a chat 
> about this topic during the AppsArea session on Monday morning
> (and BTW there are no SEC area sessions opposite). That might be a
> good place to start.
> 
> 
> Are you thinking of this in terms of MSAs in the RFC 6409 sense, as
> well as MTAs?

I'm thinking about what Keith Moore posted in draft-moore-email-tls.
So yes, MSAs in the RFC 6409 sense (but also covering IMAP and POP).

> Though SMTP is used for both, the usefulness of things like DANE is
> likely to be different in the different contexts.
> 
> That hints, unfortunately, that there is a strong possibility that
> the best current practice may be best specified in relation to a
> specific use of a protocol rather than generally to the protocol.

So it seems.

We all need to up our game, but each of us might need to do so in
different ways.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=QKwx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----