Listening in why not allow the certificates to be defined on a regex, and have 
the queries to the database return a regex match. Seems to solve the problem. 
Email address grammars more complex than a regular expression seem a pain 
anyway. 

Regards
Alexis Shaw b

> On 30 Mar 2015, at 4:39 pm, Doug Montgomery <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article 
>> <CAMaMmn=g9FA2sYFzcnLgGCEfpnWFVb3sOwyPMr_g=qhp9az...@mail.gmail.com> you 
>> write:
>> >For any set of aliases that are manually configured, publishing a key, or
>> >CNAME for each of those is of the same order of complexity as establishing
>> >the alias itself.
>> 
>> For over a decade, I've been doing the common trick of inventing a new
>> address each time I sign up for something.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but
>> you appear to be saying that now, I have to stop, go to some sort of DNS
>> provisioning system, tell it about the name I'm about to invent, publish
>> the new record, and wait for it to propagate before I can go back to the
>> web page where I'm about to use the name. 
>> 
>> Also, I have no idea what all of the addresses are that I've made up
>> over the years, many of which still get mail from whoever I gave them
>> to.  It appears I'm out of luck there.
> 
> I am not sure I understand the use case of wanting to enable opportunistic 
> inbound encryption to all of the thousands of address that you can't even 
> remember.  But OK, is your use case is that you want keying (the same 
> keying?) for all 500M potential variants? .... or just the thousands you have 
> used?
> 
> What about the person who might want different keying for his personal email 
> and that of his mailing lists (assuming that is what many folks do with their 
> aliases).
> 
> Actually there are strict compliance implications about managing network 
> identities in many commercial environments, where the idea that on is 
> creating keying material for other, non explicitly created identities, won't 
> fly.  So if you enable key discovery and retrieval the 500M variants, please 
> provide a mechanism to explicitly disable this feature too. 
> 
> As for DNS provisioning, none of this is going anywhere if there isn't 
> significant automation between identity creation and keying.  The vast 
> majority of users don't even know there is a DNS.
> 
> Personally, I am interested in enterprise-class solutions.  Here if the DANE 
> keying material is not dynamically updated from our identity/credential 
> management system, it is a complete non-starter.
>  
>> 
>> >Unless your user agent generates a fuzzy match variant of your from:
>> >address outbound with each email, I am not sure that the scaling problem is.
>> 
>> There are plenty of mail systems that do that.  Perhaps it would be
>> helpful to learn more about the way that modern mail systems work.
> 
> I am aware of how mail modern systems work (many have better ways of 
> organizing email than generating thousands of addresses :).   I was speaking 
> of the hypothetical 500M algorithmic variants.  I assume your mail system is 
> not randomly generating your thousands of aliases.
> 
> I am also aware of the problem I thought we were trying to solve.  What I 
> heard at the mic was that solving the general problem of keying that matches 
> all the various local fuzzy matching rules of modern mail systems was either 
> intractable, or outside the scope of DANE, or both.  Let alone taking on the 
> problem of those who don't want that behavior, or might want different keys 
> on different local aliases.
> 
> What I heard after the meeting on the list was some support of solving the 
> simple problem in a ubiquitous way in DANE.   I am guessing we would provide 
> a solution that covers the vast majority of users with a simple one key per 
> unique LHS.
> 
> I think there may be support for solving the simple problem in DANE now.   
> 
> As for the more complex scenarios, it might warrant revisiting the use cases 
> to understand the requirements, design trade offs of if, where and how the 
> issue is addressed.
>  
>> 
>> R's,
>> John
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> DougM at Work
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to