Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS: another SMTP TLS mechanism

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Fri, 25 March 2016 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
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 C3D1E12D18B for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
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 izO9fS22XkyS for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66C5612D15B for <uta@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:bfe::3] ([IPv6:2001:470:1f05:bfe::3]) (authenticated bits=0) by v2.bluepopcorn.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id u2PJ3ab8010396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <uta@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:03:41 -0700
To: uta@ietf.org
References: <56F49E9B.2090403@bluepopcorn.net> <79BB5D4B-A939-42F0-9F3D-3F9E59BC4668@azet.org> <56F5410C.8060906@wizmail.org>
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Message-ID: <56F58B88.40503@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:03:36 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56F5410C.8060906@wizmail.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; t=1458932621; bh=NhWB9tkk8y8E92431tjhRV4z4hwVfuOwyBC9xY8+Xw4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=bHPEb18SgAqzHfZgGUaKRdaJutxIDBrSlvbJh7Fj/KlFf3SQoUDk4j2NQkg6i0hOT mwWr/GTjqpCKX4R8jjvFv1H9JUB6BQ7glwK6uS63dsbX2uUDlNcxpWfIZJYVYGdnyt 9NmzC4/Xn36SXV28F030U1Ak0j6mVUSYMhZ4UxCw=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/oK1-PiVMbHsO-Qgs96Dc88vIeYA>
Subject: Re: [Uta] REQUIRETLS: another SMTP TLS mechanism
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:03:43 -0000

On 03/25/2016 06:45 AM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 25/03/16 12:09, Aaron Zauner wrote:
>>> On 25 Mar 2016, at 03:12, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
>>> REQUIRETLS is an SMTP service extension that allows an SMTP client to
>>> specify (via a MAIL FROM option) that a given message must be sent over
>>> a TLS protected session with specified security characteristics. Options
>>> allow the specification of allowable methods of server certificate
>>> verification, including web-PKI and DANE. In advertising its support for
>>> REQUIRETLS, the SMTP server is promising to honor that requirement.
>> This sounds very similar to what DEEP is trying to achieve, can you highlight important differences?
> As I read them:
>
> REQUIRETLS covers an entire chain of to-MTA hops (by requiring not only
> TLS but also REQUIRETLS on a forwarding hop, or bounce).  It would
> presumably cover the MUA-MSA hop (as DEEP does) when SMTP was used
> there.  It SHOULD's secure access by the destination MUA (though that
> will be hard, in many implementations, as it requires implementation
> in a separate lump of software).  It works on a per-message basis.
>
> DEEP talks in terms of per-mail-account configuration.  It deals with
> both submission and access,  It talks about UI presentation of
> security status.  It does not cover beyond the MSA or MDA.

That's basically correct. REQUIRETLS is strictly an SMTP mechanism; it's
mostly about MTA-MTA hops but since message submission sometimes
(often?) happens via SMTP, it's usable for MUA-MSA hops using SMTP as
well. I haven't dug into DEEP very far yet, but it is primarily about
MUA-MSA and MUA access of the message store and about UI. They may be
complementary in emphasizing different parts of the mail path.

-Jim