In article <CAHw9_i+xnC=fivajrws4dllihuy+vyof_j7wxzfpdl3myk1...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: >> On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >>> The draft can be found here: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/ >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 >>> >>> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
I've reread it and still think we should adopt it. I share the concerns about calling .onion a TLD, but I think that's easily fixable by calling it something like a special purpose namespace, then going through the document and changing it where appropriate. When it's talking about stuff that happens through Tor, it's a special purpose namespace, when about mitigating problems due to leakage of queries into ordinary DNS software, that's where we say there won't be a TLD with that name. Yeah, in a world where everyone was prescient it'd be .onion.alt or something like that, but we're the Internet Engineering Task Force, not the Internet Theology Task Force. Part of engineering is knowing when to prefer a kludge that works over a beautiful design that won't. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
