On 7/15/15, 11:38, "DNSOP on behalf of hellekin" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of helle...@gnu.org> wrote:
>I agree that the URL could be use more foresight, e.g. >https://torproject.org/spec/protocol, >https://torproject.org/spec/naming, etc. I already suggested this form >to the Tor people without response. That said, an URL is the right thing >to do, as long as it does not change. Once the URL makes it to an RFC, >it is the responsibility of the domain operators to keep it running. >When the Tor specifications are updated to RFC status, then the .onion >tld RFC can be updated as well to point to the new references. ".onion tld RFC" - minor point, but all along we are trying to avoid a TLD for ".onion". URLs are nice for giving a reference, but there's still a need to curate the data. In particular, what if the torproject.org name registration expires and is bought by someone else? >*** Are you suggesting then that only 7. is kept? No, 2, 3 have roles as well as 7. Not sure about 1. But I really see 4,5,6 as not desirable. >In any case I recommend reading the original proposal for .onion in the >P2PNames draft 04 for an alternate view. Maybe some of the questions >there can be useful here. This is the last call for the doc in the subject line. If text there helps, it should be worked into the draft in the subject line.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
