On 4/25/16 6:49 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
> On 2016-04-25 15:37, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> In BA there was consensus (pretty strong at that) to adopt this draft as
>> a WG document.
>>
> s/this draft/these drafts/
>
> This is 2 (two) separate consensus calls. Please express your support
> or objection for either/both documents going forward as WG documents.
>
>> This starts an adoption call for adoption as a WG document. Please
>> indicate your support or objection (with motivation) for WG adoption
>> no later than EOB (any TZ) May 1st
>>
>>      Cheers Leif

1. TLSRPT

This looks like a useful extension, analogous in some ways to the
reporting aspects of DMARC which I understand have been beneficial. I'm
not sure how reporting fits with the UTA WG's charter though: perhaps as
one of the 'best practices' that it alludes to? With that caveat, I
support adoption of TLSRPT as a WG document.

2. STS

I'm a bit more concerned about STS. We effectively already have a policy
mechanism for SMTP servers to advertise their use of STARTTLS, but an
insecure one: the EHLO response. Other than requiring the use of DNSSEC
(which I think everyone agrees is a non-starter), other options for
domains to publish STARTTLS policy all have some security problems that
we are trying to work around by "webby" mechanisms. STS was supposed to
be easier to deploy than alternatives that required new MTA software,
but with the requirements to deploy web servers, and possibly a new
discovery mechanism to figure out where to look for them, I'm not sure
it is as easy to deploy as it once looked.

In the IRTF Open Session at IETF 95, one of the papers said that
STARTTLS  is stripped on 96.1% of email coming from Tunisia (and
significant fractions from other countries as well). We should be asking
whether STS would improve that situation, or simply whether whoever is
doing the blocking could deploy mechanisms to defeat STS as well. If it
wouldn't, long term, improve that number, we shouldn't be adding
complexity. If there are other classes of attack that would be defeated
by STS, I'd like to understand them.

For those reasons, I do not support adoption of STS as a WG document.

-Jim



_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Reply via email to