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

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:33:28 -0700

On 4/11/16, 1:45 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]> 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)

..and possibly also..

      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-email-deep

..yes?

thx, hth,

=JeffH

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:05:01 +0100

Hi Jeff,

>      (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:-)

>      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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:26:37 +0200

> ideas embodied therein. (But yeah, those are the drafts we have

yes