On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:19:15PM +0000, Osterweil, Eric wrote: > >> > Either way of computing the hash of the full address, rather than >> > just the local part adds no complexity, and makes off-line attacks >> > more difficult (per site dictionaries, rather than global dictionaries). >> > This is a free win. There's simply no reason not to. >> >> I have to say that I agree with Paul here. I think the epsilon >> increase in security is nice, but not at the cost of the additional >> operational complexity. However, the hashing-only approach has >> the nice side effect of fixing the label length. That _does_ seem >> to solve a problem w/o some of the additional complexity. My vote >> would be hashing-only approach over Base32 and HMAC. > > In an off-list IM discussion, Paul H. and I reached consensus on > local-part only hashing. His argument is based on the introduction > of root zone DNAME RRs that create equivalence between large subtrees > of the DNS namespace.
Doh! Yeah, that's a really good point -- there have been a number of similar discussions recently where DNAME has thrown a spanner into the works / hasn't been considered. W > Users will likely expect these to result in > equivalence of email addresses, ... so having SMIMEA lookup labels > that work relative to multiple equivalent domain FQDNs is then a > requirement. > > So I withdraw the suggestion to salt the lookup key with the domain. > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
