Re: [Uta] "webby" STS and DANE/DNSSEC co-existence

On 2016-04-28 13:05, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> On 27/04/16 00:33, =JeffH wrote:
>> On 4/11/16, 1:45 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>    >
>>    > With no hats, I'd like to argue that the WG should pursue
>>    > the "webby" STS proposal, ...
>>
>> just to ensure this thread is pedantically clear, when you said the
>> above, you were referring to..
>>
>>      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-margolis-smtp-sts
>>      (which has now morphed in to two separate I-Ds)
> 
> Well not particularly those drafts but yes I was referring to the
> ideas embodied therein. (But yeah, those are the drafts we have
> with those ideas in:-)

yes

> 
>>
>> ..and possibly also..
>>
>>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-email-deep
> 
> To the extent we want deep to be consistent with the above drafts,
> yes, the same discussion should be relevant.
> 
> And in case it helps, I think we do need the webby approach in
> addition to the DNSSEC based approach because DNSSEC, while being
> the correct solution here, doesn't yet have sufficient deployment.
> I also hope that the webby approach will not further damage DNSSEC
> deployment in this case - I figure DANE/DNSSEC will have enough
> advantages over the webby approach that it'll continue to be used,
> and hence that at least some of the biggest mail providers will
> need to at least be able to verify DANE/DNSSEC stuff so the webby
> thing will I hope end up as a stopgap.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>>
>> ..yes?
>>
>> thx, hth,
>>
>> =JeffH
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uta mailing list
>> Uta@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>