Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered harmful
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 19:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53EC11E8152 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K5toScAlolTS for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD0811E820F for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x13so4721090ief.23 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=84+8b29IUhlS5DLH6dR2Lx6MkhxSIX/2Hhwx4ps8b6M=; b=R6Ymy6LSVY4I4XxI8rHzqs7oL8BONBGRLgVbcsGDgSNDLaQ7d9erw0I4sjBedZ5YxF ZX6gpxak13hvp5JA7pOZ2SEcGmFBjkzJMzSZGBQBemtOYpiVFu9eF/1KGVPstm+uoCm5 9C819+BNuFe9dsVi+9mRD2Jwp8xj3AaOARMF5ngxkpV+T9NhQf6lDqUu5pBzEKSIZT8Q zDQgtlGTK1jifej2b/KcZ4EegJxzNkj4Fspoak3crvMdVFsA8e6veJ2pvVCe3OMBrUjf eQybzyrJ5CPIOkvYo18Dunb5oPxS9mdggv+hseRbYj4hlAHjR0P6zHuJWhiATfs0WsJt N7HQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.120.104 with SMTP id lb8mr3118028igb.22.1382643811284; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.202 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <526960FF.3050902@stpeter.im>
References: <CAPik8yaKaXRm3t3sepRHAFADCnOmdPjQC5-be3a8Xsr29965BQ@mail.gmail.com> <5266AC02.80506@cs.tcd.ie> <5267B862.6000105@isode.com> <5267BAD9.8070702@cs.tcd.ie> <526960FF.3050902@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:43:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAVP4sW6_fQc5rvzS8zomcvyz5hddM7Hobbw+MMC7y1Ew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd76bb23902a204e981d928"
Cc: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "<perpass@ietf.org>" <perpass@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered harmful
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for discussion of the privacy properties of IETF protocols and concrete ways in which those could be improved. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:43:37 -0000
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote: > > >> I think SMTP TLS BCP would be a good idea. I think it should be > >> independent of DANE, because of the status of the DANE document. > >> I would be happy to work on it (and would be happy to collaborate > >> with PSA to discuss similarities and differences). > > > > Great. Let's talk in YVR about how to get that done so its a real > > BCP that gets followed in the wild. If someone else is up for > > helping I guess contact Alexey. > > Before this thread emerged, I suggested the idea of having a chat > about this topic during the AppsArea session on Monday morning (and > BTW there are no SEC area sessions opposite). That might be a good > place to start. > > Are you thinking of this in terms of MSAs in the RFC 6409 sense, as well as MTAs? Though SMTP is used for both, the usefulness of things like DANE is likely to be different in the different contexts. That hints, unfortunately, that there is a strong possibility that the best current practice may be best specified in relation to a specific use of a protocol rather than generally to the protocol. regards, Ted > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > >
- [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered harmful Paul Hoffman
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… John-Mark Gurney
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Harry Halpin
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Paul Wouters
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Ted Hardie
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… ned+perpass
- Re: [perpass] Hasty PRISM proofing considered har… Yaron Sheffer