On 7/3/15 7:01 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:43 AM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: >> Actually, there IS an escape method already defined. We just don’t use it >> much these days. >> It’s called “class” >> >> There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class. >> they could/should be in their >> own class, like the old CHAOS protocols. So a class “ONION” or “P2P” >> would work out very nicely. > > Yup, but the problem is that people want to be able to enter the > alternate namespace names into existing applications (like browsers, > ssh, etc), just like a "normal" DNS name. They want to be able to > email links around (like https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/ ) and have > others click on them, etc. > > There is no way that I know of to tell e.g Safari to look this up in a > different class... and, even if there were, they would *still* leak, > because people are lazy...
well before we just started typing stuff in and let heuristics and search engines divine what we meant, we had urns. I will not suggest that we're going back there UI wise but the heuristics can get more expressive. this can be largely a UI issue today in chrome, if I want to send my query to a particular application e.g. wolfram alpha I do "= " and proceed. UI grooming in no way prevents leakage. nor does it preclude you from having to divine the intentions of the user. > W > >> >> After all it’s the Domain Name System. (can comprehend names in multiple >> domains, not just the Internet) >> >> manning >> bmann...@karoshi.com >> PO Box 12317 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >> 310.322.8102 >> >> >> >> On 2July2015Thursday, at 20:56, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2July2015Thursday, at 18:21, Robert Edmonds <edmo...@mycre.ws> wrote: >>> >>>> manning wrote: >>>>> There in lies the problem. These systems have no way to disambiguate >>>>> a local v. global scope. >>>>> It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes >>>>> do NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets >>>>> and no way to attempt DNS resolution. Or they need to ensure >>>>> that DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology” >>>>> which is not global in scope. >>>> >>>> I don't understand this point. Since Onion hidden service names are >>>> based on hashes derived from public keys surely they're globally scoped >>>> (barring hash collisions)? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Robert Edmonds >>> >>> If they _are_ globally scoped, what part of the local system decides which >>> namespace to use, the ONION, the LOCAL, the P2P, the BIT, the BBSS, the >>> DECnetV, the IXP, or the DNS… >>> where is search order determined? Does first match in any namespace win? >>> What is the tiebreaker when there are label collisions between namespaces? >>> >>> >>> /bill >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
