IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Next steps on CAA

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 06 October 2017 22:14 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 40777124207 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=EqKTRKFS; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=cMbjmX3g
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 SmrXO3B_DmcX for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:14:39 -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 08D25133090 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23977 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2017 22:14:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5da7.59d8004d.k1710; bh=2qgc5mB4BCR/qS4miC7A6ShTcsi9cdP6Ex7pdYWrguc=; b=EqKTRKFSohbHftICvHHSXZB2qvFmRCDZ36EkKoCQl3jErcrVqTfvgauRuWzLuA9TNo6bQ7Dlg2TWZFGG5u4NrgS219TVhDqhwenEwXc1EcepGKUk5eM5Kkahf7Lg6iOBD747UcPDBcQEZaN5EdvUIaf98dX9xnR42D92vdsfVWXoolHve1UMu6OteWdeaXC0uMM6TRI3khMJNKfMxYLICZK5UyzRV2AhGnTBiF6ytIC4XUDH2ykY7AXs754hPzxp
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=5da7.59d8004d.k1710; bh=2qgc5mB4BCR/qS4miC7A6ShTcsi9cdP6Ex7pdYWrguc=; b=cMbjmX3gtsZOVPhGG4ig1XVdMC6RI8AeVByFX5fZSOtGz4qnaT8t9jPXG+WbRBMLM5biiOJhknFXD8kwJvWsAOjAYd7p/J0wxmXfAZdl9F5bsjkFOOFChFG3PF0sbEI8O0LMEWkbhIUfSaG3x9lw94RwQPgZcibg8E7dUgsTaPqOrFfNZAvEQ5VeZ+qVec7tohFKPYnKdN4pu028Yi/9uP+6ogyTN2qYVzviWWnwdvuolqb6gRmInuIU3LwnAeIM
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 06 Oct 2017 22:14:37 -0000
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 18:14:37 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1710061748500.33785@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <7b98f765-4fea-5b71-e860-e46c11d6617e@eff.org>
References: <CACh0qC+jRjPMsf7YmDqoKZ0X1zWE2p=fUAo5uN3bZwwzBRG9Kg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1710061656080.33175@ary.qy> <7b98f765-4fea-5b71-e860-e46c11d6617e@eff.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/oOQYV0JByNzRGAvaBHyQMAZ4NmE>
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: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 22:14:41 -0000

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> On 10/06/2017 02:04 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> This doesn't deal with DNAMEs but I don't see any reasonable solution
>> to DNAMEs since I don't see any reasonble way to construct a
>> non-DNAME'd name from a DNAME'd one.
> Note that there is no need to deal explicitly with DNAMEs (or CNAMEs).
> They are handled for us by the DNS spec, and are resolved transparently
> by any recursive resolver. This is the main issue fixed in the
> caa-simplification draft.

If you'll review the messages you're responding to, you'll see that the 
problem is that we want a CNAME'd web server and a non-CNAME'd CAA.  There 
are some cases where tree climbing might fix that, but a lot where it 
won't, e.g.:

mydom.example.  CAA issue "nope"   ; no web server here
www.mydom.example. CNAME somehost.example. ; web server here

Where does the CAA go?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email