IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] New proposal: SMTP Strict Transport Security

Daniel Margolis <dmargolis@google.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dmargolis@google.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 1BC6512DAFE for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 t1tB5iE34rX0 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C7112DB1C for <uta@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l20so12992862igf.0 for <uta@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ZVD2sCZAIISdxwORbYnx4OczswGOf2+BGC1AtNoQLBQ=; b=mGo8HsFSguAghF7kENokg3P7bl/T9N2NScxSJ5ulEabUAksOSi4KZvX0HAMS8n7d0c nCvzcxSG7RJVxAXtNlt/kVcGRpPEdxdQCZrCeoMCqSK9iqRheAUMc5foEkO1QdnV7M8o 4fJHD1nEeSrncu1XIG2uYY+xSoMrcavmiyr22WRp2vq3fHppmyKFHqpnkzHkdwVYypqn eIsbfzlxSH0iUIewMa2LTF7osBDuVM0f+QVJsxSY96te4aaCJ40nElxfXoi0L7Iw26Tx vOluXqE9Suy28pfmiBukn8r8Uq5q/bbDwi7CMspPt2hiQSAQz24TPKPkN05fhk75ariY SXpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ZVD2sCZAIISdxwORbYnx4OczswGOf2+BGC1AtNoQLBQ=; b=QcnBXPvvP/f1ggCc9geBlAecXd6fY1KKb55m8uWNT2txuNZ3rld7QXuwc5pzBcfEuQ gr1zhz4cJVQCls7nvSSL1plw7KCgAeJjDw0KnN1TV7m7hx6+XKa3pXgdbJEWWqJzI/ST Sx0fjKBacajZ8RnnBxtAJ9ieBWiREzndSQJa61aAsI9xvaoDYFf+CJ/ixFkJwGNGvKHr C+oYxRNGuXkkqyfFk952g6fMSc5R56FZup/Lcm44wXmBmZo1JjcQFCihbyYmeVjFm4EN KeZZuhwPfD/B83UPnE9Tpqa6CWdandir+TsQ9cXr0g7utQWtyMEzDsFhfRpXP4BG/2j1 CrLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIEzg4JiK9RgtGx9roDTG1Z5EydIqRIpxCZrc6RK5Soz2fBageFqpzl8cCb6r/DyZ7kcoVTEt+VvA/ABCDA
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.47.49 with SMTP id a17mr19328662ign.35.1458663203619; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.251.136 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56F16E5A.6070305@isode.com>
References: <CAB0W=GS2PXF-divC+SNs+A-jH1-_BBA889-TbQXHvrVsrbKLEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAB0W=GSQ4oTLT+qepMi7Pj5=UmBD70D_uW7c193RY-gw818ORA@mail.gmail.com> <CAB0W=GRB_6LhqEGYzeYq-srnM99wqwZrdjUEm=vJ7+oFiKbYoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAB0W=GTGja5JtxGuCzhD6O3B2Ow-wLN-B6WQ8XUDyvQRqdFZxw@mail.gmail.com> <20160322063527.GD6602@mournblade.imrryr.org> <CANtKdUeh8LV1uaWAyRqQ2ou4pdTNvKgzuJ5kKsQLwPFORqrDQA@mail.gmail.com> <20160322084859.GF6602@mournblade.imrryr.org> <D31BCFDF-5926-413A-8624-26B65F741A75@noware.co.uk> <CANtKdUdLiLDE5s2Exj4eh+o1Fob2-bDXWCpJM87mHKBa+aQkYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160322160933.GG6602@mournblade.imrryr.org> <56F16E5A.6070305@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:13:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CANtKdUe5RNbE6pY8eBCgm-eyz5XLao-0Y+eW=XR9QehwPe_YPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Margolis <dmargolis@google.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01229fa619c30a052ea57e6b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/tQP3fmgUVvEKC-0G7G4Xart5TH4>
Cc: uta@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uta] New proposal: SMTP Strict Transport Security
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:14:04 -0000

Yeah, we posted this to SMTP in order to get extra eyes on this, but we're
new at this process, so bear with us. I think we should have said, "Hey,
this is on the UTA mailing list, please head over there to discuss." I'll
post a followup to that effect now. :)

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
wrote:

> Hi Viktor,
>
> On 22/03/2016 16:09, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:10:57AM +0100, Daniel Margolis wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback to both of you. I don't disagree; I think Viktor
>>> makes a very solid point in favor of simplicity. In addition, a
>>> report-only
>>> protocol could be extended to support arbitrary error reporting; an
>>> out-of-band (e.g. HTTP) channel to share delivery failures between
>>> domains
>>> strikes me as useful in the general case.
>>>
>>> Separately, because we're already assuming providers (both sending and
>>> receiving) make a choice on implementing DANE and/or webPKI, I don't
>>> think
>>> actually splitting the two makes it any more or less complex to
>>> implement,
>>> or should discourage adoption of one or the other mechanism.
>>>
>>> So I would say I'm feeling a bit in favor of Viktor's suggestion, but I'd
>>> like to chat a bit more with my co-authors and think about it first. ;)
>>>
>> Great.  One more question.  I see that there are parallel
>> non-overlapping threads on this proposal on tha UTA and IETF-SMTP
>> lists.  Is either the "primary" forum for discussing this proposal?
>> Should people be encouraged to cross-post?  Should the IETF-SMTP
>> users who want to discuss it be encouraged to shift the discussion
>> here?
>>
> I think so, this document is within the UTA charter (or at least very
> close to it).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email