IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Margolis <dmargolis@google.com> Mon, 11 April 2016 20:53 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 BCFBB12F465 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.696 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=-0.996, 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 3CWZU8d3p6ee for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (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 1E1C012F464 for <uta@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u185so2192969iod.3 for <uta@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:53 -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; bh=v0HY4WKsJlZAwCoJhcM/b7mtP9LM4YeCe7GPniEF+Go=; b=KM/Lu16CzKKbBda6mzxWDMTzXwSQxDgQ7lEqvQWwO4uZdOUldIiJ0vnkp/nVJWsyMM urgsfx1w4l275y0yRfrP1szdfakIPfELNFPpkSwUL+zRENrJuAQbV3uIeG5KZyndGRD8 EtrGJXQo/Y9t35jAF6p9gkbCQDgxKf+34ImM7TZO3O1nzFQSmEEv7nsURy0YBZEm3HbJ AWYyAes6k5WVJq2MBLQUEzkWj70o/qmLJ1NaNDgx5Pwfcbtz2Ek3HZmsEec7+THUXeKX b1gxJfApwr9nOQUgbeXhlC4Q4LDs6IGgUnZ+uxPH1FBQl9jYU+dccd8oM0VkWfdcRsyR 018w==
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; bh=v0HY4WKsJlZAwCoJhcM/b7mtP9LM4YeCe7GPniEF+Go=; b=OtONSmaMZNhsT/2vM0XDk3hv7+r16a9KcLz0h3DE6kZ/FdBRu23eTNaLbvV3tRd4bM 3X9YQJcMDHgezBlzpvA1/+lhV9oZC00sNpKjEF8xufTjRVT9niMM/LFP/rtDZ5GYdwro vQ/sbOPoV45GQUVQOyROZm89em1cwjoXaMEayCfFI11OouYQbg8CuxXAoszI2RfuQMC3 NdNyNAAGjrZL5haVENIyxW9cArNJjodgEG0QAfUZew4IhWBDDtzUibLMMf7zJe9DuCSc E1D4OzYmq3heaI9mShF/oobXIBBmwYpki9UsiP2W7E6x25SWDUWoo61g16PdbedG/AxP VUIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWl9KUvZs3uUrHTSEjCuEhPjE4DjfS6uVA0UO7v2cOR6mMFfU/AXvy/sQ7EA2BTY/zRcYyHD+yofHGcspt8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.12.67 with SMTP id w64mr124091ioi.114.1460408032225; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.91.226 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160411203046.GZ26423@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <CANtKdUewMQ5jVAUOaWfuUquFdDB_dh_jNEfAo7T=qruqzszGqw@mail.gmail.com> <1A3DB748-26E6-404D-84F5-962B3AA21AB4@azet.org> <CANtKdUf9MujQxZQMz8xbPi+EVOYXLWgR342x1-S8u12PPm-TAA@mail.gmail.com> <20160406224039.GH26423@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20160408151600.GB13343@schweikert.ch> <20160408190615.GM26423@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20160409220007.GA17512@schweikert.ch> <CANtKdUd5Oqbd9Y-mTzEoBzKJJy5gcbUzYOu=YFziGaCsg56SoQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160410204458.GX26423@mournblade.imrryr.org> <CANtKdUe7_ZUT=Js47mP=i7h+hbR6wrMJN6XvZEypyWGyTkVUeA@mail.gmail.com> <20160411203046.GZ26423@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:53:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CANtKdUdhrAMWVGfaqQgbr+vmHpRNYVzzNJ-gvM38zNe5kmqDjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Margolis <dmargolis@google.com>
To: uta@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f92b6fd955005303bbd3e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/wk8jnB1FZ3e6Q53bdepIMW5HhYA>
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:53:55 -0000

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
wrote:

> > I think instead it makes sense to simply say that in the smarthosting
> case
> > the policy domain is the smarthost domain.
>
> Not sure where "instead" comes from, that's the only plausible
> interpretation for transport security, but note that when the
> nexthop domain (smarthost is a special case of nexthop based on
> local policy) is subject to further MX lookups (example 1), the
> STS policy is associated with the nexthop domain, not the target
> MX hosts.
>

Yes, agreed. I was saying "instead" as in "as opposed to truly separating
routing and per-host policies". In that solution (either separating the
policies into separate records on possibly separate domains--somewhat
mimicking the relationship between the DNSSEC-signed MX and the TLSA
records in the DANE case--or moving the per-host policy in-band) you get
more complexity to handle the case in the same way as we just described
here (an STS policy for the next-hop, regardless of what it is), which
seems a losing trade.

Anyway, tl;dr: agreed that it needs to be specified as you suggest.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email