On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:47 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 5:36 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I don't necessarily object to having this be TLSA, but given that we
> are standardizing
> >> a record whose precise purpose is to signal what services are available
> at a given
> >> location, it seems to me natural to use that.
>
> I can't fully parse the sentence.
>

Rephrased: TLSA might work, but given that SVCB is designed for this
purpose,
my prior is to favor it.


> > +1. I used TLSA because PaulW had proposed it and no one objected to the
> proposal, but a new purpose-built signal seems fine.
>
> Note that I did not object to TLSA. I prefer it over SVCB. I don't think
> it is realistiv for any new kind of glue record to be invented and that
> seemed to have been the reason in the proposal to use SVCB? To serve
> it at the parent side of the zone cut?
>

I do think serving this at the parent side of the zone cut is a good idea,
but that's not the reason for SVCB.


> Another reason for SVCB was that you can define the transports in one
> place, instead of having them _prefix'ed at different places for TLSA.
> And as a method to specify DoH. I don't think these are an issue because
> DoH is a bad fit for this solution anyway as previously discussed.


I don't necessarily agree that DoH is a bad fit. I just don't see any point
in arguing
about it, because I think SVCB is better for other reasons.


> Having said that, I'm a bit hesitant if that new signal also recreates
> TLSA semantics for the public key, given how hard it was for the DANE WG to
> settle on those, but maybe it won't be so rough this time (or maybe we can
> use TLSA for the public key info).
>
> If the DNSSEC PKI is used, I think the semantics for Usage and Selector
> are obvious. In the case of WebPKI, it can be as weak as people want? Eg
> putting a TLSA record there for the LetsEncrypt CA. I wouldn't limit it
> to enforce it to be the Selector for SBKI.
>

As has been discussed extensively, the general feeling among people who
work with
the WebPKI is that pinning has turned out to be a bad idea. For this
reason, it's
important to be able to have an available way to say "just use the WebPKI",
even
if it's also possible to be more specific.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to