IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Next steps on CAA

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 04 October 2017 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 E797A120724 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HK4eac0pJ6zR for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9C91331DC for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 79729 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2017 22:44:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.53) by gal.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Oct 2017 22:44:11 -0000
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 22:43:49 -0000
Message-ID: <20171004224349.3094.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spasm@ietf.org
Cc: housley@vigilsec.com
In-Reply-To: <4FDC1A25-9CC4-4E79-B46B-93BFD36E01DA@vigilsec.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/o7n2BDFxnB40FlfnEDhvuVDOkvw>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Next steps on CAA
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: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 22:44:15 -0000

In article <4FDC1A25-9CC4-4E79-B46B-93BFD36E01DA@vigilsec.com> you write:
>> 1) The CNAME is there to make the names equivalent so the CAA record at example.net <http://example.net/> should aply
>> 
>> 2) The CNAME is only there to make the CDN work and the CAA record at example.net <http://example.net/> should be ignored.
>
>If one looks in the DNS for www.ietf.org, one will see:
>
>	www.ietf.org.		607	IN	CNAME	www.ietf.org.cdn.cloudflare.net.
>
>I'm not sure how you would expect to distinguish the two cases.

If your CDN tries to lock you in with a rogue CAA record, that's a
business issue, not a technical one.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email