Re: [ietf-smtp] [Uta] New Version Notification for draft-levine-addition

I suggest calling out ESNI specifically as a reason to not log the
SNI in the security considerations, e.g. via:

OLD:

   In a few
   circumstances, a new Additional-registered-clause might disclose
   information to a recipient that was otherwise unavailable.

NEW:

   In a few
   circumstances, a new Additional-registered-clause might disclose
   information to a recipient or other actor (via data leaks) that
   was otherwise unavailable. In particular, if the SNI value was
   encrypted in the TLS handshake [ESNI] then logging is NOT
   RECOMMENDED.

[ESNI] would point at draft-ietf-tls-esni

Even if this isn't a big leak, I think it's still worth preserving
a way in which SNIs don't leak - if the TLS client and server and
TLS client's DNS setup (and maybe the TLS server's too) are all
such that we've not leaked the SNI in any of those places then I
think we're better off if we can avoid leaking it here.

There have been real data leaks of mails where metadata like
this has been revealing [1] and we can't tell in general if some
new bit of data might be correlated with something else later.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://labs.rs/en/metadata/

On 24/01/2019 19:56, John R Levine wrote:
> Apropos of recent discussions about SNI logging, here's a draft that
> adds an SNI clause to Received: headers, and per Chris Newman's
> suggestion, changes the registry criteria to Expert Review so you don't
> need to publish an RFC merely to register a new clause.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:44:52
> From: internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-levine-additional-registered-clauses-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by John Levine and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:        draft-levine-additional-registered-clauses
> Revision:    00
> Title:        Update to Additional Registered Clauses in SMTP Received
> Headers
> Document date:    2019-01-24
> Group:        Individual Submission
> Pages:        4
> URL:           
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levine-additional-registered-clauses-00.txt
>
> Status:        
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-additional-registered-clauses/
>
> Htmlized:      
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-additional-registered-clauses-00
> Htmlized:      
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-levine-additional-registered-clauses
>
>
>
> Abstract:
>    SMTP servers add Received: trace headers to mail messages to track
>    their progress This document updates the registration criteria for
>    Additional Registered Clauses in those headers to Expert Review, and
>    adds a new clause for Server Name Indication (SNI).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp