Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT

Joseph Bonneau <jbonneau@gmail.com> Tue, 13 May 2014 04:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jbonneau@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FD01A0844 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 May 2014 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BTRAk05Im2x4 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 May 2014 21:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22b.google.com (mail-ve0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BB11A083C for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 May 2014 21:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id oz11so10183845veb.30 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 May 2014 21:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=W3HQRf1CETtdHILsz+WOHbh7QwZUbVjBHlDDwxszGPo=; b=mz9S5lDvAN5/z4tfDfzZQupRQUWkuuegmuVlOho/MJIT4W87zKJfgSchy9eEheTXBT u5dQpqnr1p/wCgY5kVJrPcMdyoJIWWx6sihPjyBWwARQVHevOg/m8E5m31m8uoHS/FQy DpwGWQWHMHCi799+U9KX0GJCg0yOijZaGejY91ezjll90eFL1A/afWmWAJnZDnV1ESCj nUA5KC0Fg9jtc4yYWlDF6mHgQOWBEpPHbJV6PHE4wrzFTr79FFf2zW7RSmBUsc6/TQer T1jrZ5hf+MuWTtscZMB0woaBkA0JDbav5QBulq/1JGfLwaXVP/tS983mnU4aRCTU4mrs 1kkw==
X-Received: by 10.221.26.10 with SMTP id rk10mr27089507vcb.0.1399957021891; Mon, 12 May 2014 21:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.86.136 with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2014 21:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOi6y=QAMXe_2axiavxwR5nS2Uv8SM4JxQHsvEKbUyNGCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK3OfOjiL2DTJPH3CaAjg8YGrrwN56SgQ+DnqPXx4MLbgXQN+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwieij8Tm8V-gpE0eAfwie1dgtFL_Ga8dPkJFKJKLQDAcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiKjY6YyiyeHiFJrecZfj_uQ-2k+KucKnzb9Yt8VCRPOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iKpN7AXfrH6SzroMukrKTPR5z24U9KfWpVW-F2R_wX3ag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1405101722240.897@bofh.nohats.ca> <CABrd9ST7K-7RGwGD2G+kDcVSceC2ZJ-5Tz2tdp5NWa3cqBK+-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOe4Ui=nqmCfjBYNE2CJtEs1jnbavpY4Dv-T3FRDdAwAA2dScg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiYMJkXVR+QsCzEV0ir6u53coJz0b-JdGGD5bTTz5YcMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOe4Ui=u0fkm9_nuXx_6gpH6jHM5pBvzjzru9O8y3bpLkA0qmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOi6y=QAMXe_2axiavxwR5nS2Uv8SM4JxQHsvEKbUyNGCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Bonneau <jbonneau@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:56:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOe4Uimvc6e6u=fJjM1-iaOTepA33Sx5CBjMV9dB8sSLqtZoWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339ae4fda0a404f940e462
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/xKYB9w7Ie4NKHu5HMHBASjU97Kk
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Trans] DNSSEC also needs CT
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 04:57:10 -0000

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote;wrote:
>
> The ones that matter most are the TLDs and the root.  Those get so
> many users that they will be caught MITMing, if they do.
> ...
>
You're assuming I zones below the ones that matter audited, but I
> don't.  I want the root ones audited -- same as with the TLS server
> PKI.  Why would I have wanted anything else?


Your original email didn't specify if you were interested in logs only for
the root/important TLDs or for every domain. I (and I think others in this
thread) interpreted the idea as being some form of hierarchical logging for
all or almost all (non-private) domains. Are we on the same page now that
the stronger version seems very unlikely in the short to medium term?