I may have missed the consensus on this. I don’t believe the final DNS entry is hugely important as it pertains to TLSRPT on its own, as long as it extends from
the target domain. So, today we have "_smtp-tlsrpt.example.com", but it seems like to get more in line with a proper IANA registration, we should alter this slightly. Is there any reason to not go forward with “_smtp._tls.example.com” or “_smtp._tlsrpt.example.com”?
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse
Comcast
From: Uta [mailto:uta-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:09 PM
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: uta@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt.all@xxxxxxxx; IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Uta] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-17
I concur, I had come to essentially the same conclusion after discussions with IANA. The registry we were looking for was the one Dave had proposed that has not yet been created.
It might well be that what we want is a sub registry of the form _smtp._rpt. That way the reporting info for any protocol can be discovered with no need to obtain a per service registration.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Phillip,
To followup on the IANA issue from your SecDir review:
On 08/03/2018 19:39, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> Specific issues
>
> The DNS prefix _smtp-tlsrpt is defined. This is not mentioned in the IANA
> considerations. It is a code point being defined in a protocol that is outside
> the scope of UTA and therefore MUST have an IANA assignment and is a DNS code
> point which is shared space and therefore MUST have an assignment.
>
> If no IANA registry exists, one should be created.
After looking at this in more details, I think a new registration in the
registry being created by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf is exactly what you
are asking for. I think registering _smtp-tlsrpt there should be
straightforward. However I don't think this document should be delayed
until after draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf is done. So if
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf is taking time, the proposed registration can
be moved to draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf itself.
> In general, the approach should be consistent with the following:
>
> [RFC6763] S. Cheshire and M. Krochmal "DNS-Based Service Discovery" RFC 6763
> DOI 10.17487/RFC6763 February 2013
>
> It might well be appropriate to create a separate IANA prefix registry
> 'report'. That is probably easier since this prefix does not fit well with the
> existing ones.
>
> _smtp-tlsrpt._report
I think this is covered by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.
Best Regards,
Alexey
--
|
