IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spasm] CAA erratum 4515

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB7712971E for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7AHHKyWgUmLo for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x236.google.com (mail-ot0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFDD6129717 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x236.google.com with SMTP id a12so4824904ota.0 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=6u157xNC6NCDQloA1zoA1etMV/qjUDE2N4V8y/K2yG0=; b=H39xSSMvexMKO3heTLGAtgts5ZsLo7fbqIjQWkODSF/iPMmhhHQ19S2LTYJvacPndU g7EPj/ZZApCGvQ2qP6MXFcNbIkrIqjy2kJb5ViA2VdDcqo8Z7XwYrQaOrrfssBxWmuXt pl7Jvq2Z6OK10fJ+AYk0fLZkedP18vxjqN13NRyGSlJseYXTIv6hYjclzuJ55Ci21EdC REfspSXS8qb6oPINSvGi6fLGQUx3JVc4uAfOls6bMn7oUzCnGFkKAqT5zY1vC/VXHlvE 3Z18BBbIBfPwtia0gvX28RHOhD5nCA/iEgxcmPupQ65f/6YlLHH7UQrUzacTS7AgS4Yc IeVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6u157xNC6NCDQloA1zoA1etMV/qjUDE2N4V8y/K2yG0=; b=bCJiSRuHq2TyGDg+9QTbKgbpbqj7u9JiwvWjIvFOX4yLBP29zYqzqwPCOEL1kfxNSi TH6sxHef2q9U+XJh6zEek3B+EpVTS0Dso2ksYpEflWtqN4XhpqTRms3hnh+YDHVA1BXc MUjAnZk1fooFJ3Qcmmp5gLTKgq7ziDxMoKayn9m/VFWK5O3bskP6eFdYSv+W8MDN/1yO HIlWBVKXcXlv7zd1hyx6TdXWl5mDLEbxPVYgRRgdk9RSMQP045HP/8j+vb7Z23yabcph 3Fbh/MlZ6MPOQgrHJJa1dV/uPLg/hwHI8qLEooXZXF4YFXj2zJ5M+H5i4m9zUeV+5B6S SNdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3xEb6ss2HTy1WPBTm7VoLITEdCF0p67R6ALhBlVcyT7MbWwgu5b6efx2LB2lJZRogtBmrhIHUpzHzUeQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.79.18 with SMTP id d18mr6392678oib.9.1489708251201; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.157.14.123 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAErg=HF3cDWyufLYPE8sUsNMZei-1yS1Tw1dvpMPC+u67HemQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <79cf5707-693e-abf0-9e35-5dcc94a3e877@eff.org> <CAErg=HFtk0EKASTpWwNVhcT4zk2+ei-KPv=cMYDQej2oGJi=rw@mail.gmail.com> <9c55abf5-b81b-d9cb-c88c-7ea5bc6390c8@eff.org> <CAErg=HGT7FyDKgm8cAUojhGDOzLUkn=bw1Xdghbqnxw-79zQiw@mail.gmail.com> <20170311201904.GQ7733@mournblade.imrryr.org> <fede5d8f9f2c43518d8a3c502c60558a@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <389a248f-37e4-9ff7-b330-b840e7c47931@eff.org> <CAErg=HEC=YL-wWEygqtmivN0axZ_cddkM-WDc8RA+jVTJYmVgQ@mail.gmail.com> <0d7afa83-a9d7-f977-ca36-533fc13b720e@eff.org> <CAErg=HF2WnSYtxs6r_svx-zCmt8ApkVsg6R7cezaYO=3WoVKQA@mail.gmail.com> <7129a939-35f1-f55b-703b-9f39f6110520@eff.org> <CAErg=HESLRQU=vg3sOFhBoBas7bBmL-z4ZkeeXOLD+y60OU5NA@mail.gmail.com> <e3384bdd6e5f4529b3b1d8abf7b32b83@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <e2e8e857-51d6-5138-ab66-4f3f4cff1590@eff.org> <CAErg=HF3cDWyufLYPE8sUsNMZei-1yS1Tw1dvpMPC+u67HemQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:50:50 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FRe1D55LVkEVMFKjhPJqdGbLuNo
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiAncZeNF9C4n51OGOq0S-1pKy_MOVe5ke9g0zxpSF6cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Cc: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Patrick Donahue <pat@cloudflare.com>, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, Peter Bowen <pzb@amzn.com>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d85c421c62c054ae1bbf2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/EqDbZC-W6tBy_JU4IOdTBmnVDj4>
Subject: Re: [Spasm] CAA erratum 4515
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:50:53 -0000

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/15/2017 07:46 AM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. I think the lack of 'client' override - and apologies for my own
>> ignorance here, as I couldn't find where the exclusivity was stated that
>> ONLY a CNAME record may exist - is a pretty compelling argument against the
>> tree climbing.
>>
>> While I disagree with some of the points below, I think this is the key
>> argument about why recursion-into-CNAME-and-tree-climb may not be
>> desirable - because it affords less control in the default configuration,
>> and makes it easier to misconfigure.
>>
>> Great. So should I take it that you are now in support of revising the
>> RFC to specify non-tree-climbing behavior?
>>
>
> Yeah, I think the issues related to expressing policies highlight why
> tree-climbing is probably not desirable for actual CAA deployment.
>

​You mean tree climbing or tree climbing on CNAME?

If the second, I concur.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email