Re: [Uta] comments on draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-00.txt

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Wed, 28 November 2018 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3B312777C for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:41:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 fx_SyO83brZw for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D635C126C7E for <uta@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140FBED6; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:41:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:41:55 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=XpATJDlq7+gCU9fHOa9RBbaLdBmRprJDkyB2L7hea O4=; b=XS6OfGFt+Us45fycdOpGXSFL/Jnp91gpeengF5iIgN4jQfogseefxSxxx Z10TmVCsDKSeJGeLrL3ZFWoeUxYeu7qjYdlHsrop5Bolm5HvDoPU04WnXL2hDu8a nUCmhYV6gWJo9fvQpsMU7irrS3yFDwDC1OwzIYGbH3Qjs050XPbyYJ06lQhIAabp N7lA0Df75WRqQJTnqx5iuJRcqUOlUXmxeYxKY3UtZvZgZn9ocRbrBISufY1dg6al pkHOZ5ZcU3VcuS8DCRatI6tqyQx3cJG8bMDHX95l9u7uSQHei6xyKIKaUWRZUjrM SL8l79lGvlX0qPK6iEfexohO7LmoA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:cQD-W4iQs6f6SfHrsaKa7w_wva6gE0mk5kaa1i0G6e7NzdxCmdOdYA>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:cQD-W8KF-l1P0iCrJnjR_f5Am2P28pPo4f_GIsghpwK8sk7vrJ7AQw> <xmx:cQD-W93aCzaGXP-N_C0DL69lrC2qQ1A-A3v4XBLbOoy5UtA3m8X3Vw> <xmx:cQD-WwJvaRDRHVaxXJEJ3XmnGNHYCi83VPX891uJtBJGZhW_nRY97Q> <xmx:cQD-W5MF5yFSrOzDTRHRNB1TTYK7ZSddn_ZThy4lugF32cS_LioPpw> <xmx:cQD-W5zOT6AMWAERQGL6RvCsz7Y6bKiBi4B1UA8BkY0nf2J71pFQ6A> <xmx:cgD-W4I6kBMiC1Uk1En_r3tEDJbQRMztic3hepc10n9VKB8AWI6hiA>
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 01685E414B; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:41:52 -0500 (EST)
To: uta@ietf.org
References: <154324424086.8228.18121978166339274460@ietfa.amsl.com> <40750373-3072-556e-dc3f-a8d737d37a15@network-heretics.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <df05552b-4f8c-e3eb-129e-5821ccf0338e@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:41:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40750373-3072-556e-dc3f-a8d737d37a15@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/210vUfGQVr_CZRqHFZlbqgoc4lg>
Subject: Re: [Uta] comments on draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-00.txt
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:41:58 -0000

I knew I forgot something:

4. I think it would be appropriate for the title of this document to be 
something that relates it to RFC 8314, for example:

Updates to Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) for Email Submission 
and Access

The current title reads as if this document were the main body of 
recommendations.

Keith

On 11/27/18 9:35 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> 1. I especially appreciate this document being expressed as deltas to 
> RFC 8314, as I believe this makes it much easier for a reader 
> (especially an implementor or mail service operator) to understand 
> exactly what's being changed.
>
> 2.  For existing accounts that have already been established between 
> an MUA and a mail service, should updated MUAs that follow these 
> revised recommendations continue to regard TLS 1.1 as providing the 
> minimum confidentiality level?    Or should such MUAs now warn users 
> that these services no longer provide adequate confidentiality?   Or 
> are there specific server profiles (e.g. certain ciphersuites) of TLS 
> 1.1 that still provide adequate confidentiality which can be detected 
> by the client?
>
> IMO there is a delicate compromise to be made between:
>
> - encouraging service operators to upgrade their security,
>
> - not encouraging users to worry needlessly about security risks that 
> don't actually exist, and especially,
>
> - not conditioning users to ignore security warnings because they're 
> too frequently present.
>
> So when an updated MUA uses an existing account configuration to make 
> a connection with a server that supports TLS 1.1 at most, IMO it 
> should still regard that connection as providing minimum 
> confidentiality as long as there's no reason to believe that the 
> connection is insecure.  (Updated MUAs will still flag newly 
> established connection to that server as not having minimum 
> confidentiality, so operators still have some incentive to .)
>
> However if the TLS 1.1 connection (for example) is using a ciphersuite 
> now known to be insecure, an updated MUA should begin to flag those 
> connections as no longer having minimum confidentiality.
>
> (The theory that I have is that if security warnings to users are 
> consistently accurate and provide a warning of severity that is 
> proportionate to the threat, users will learn to treat them as credible.)
>
> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta