Hellekin, On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:02 AM, hellekin <helle...@gnu.org> wrote: > > To put it bluntly, from a certain perspective, 6762 and > > dnsop-onion are essentially about the same thing: they are > > formalizing squatting on namespace (by Apple in the first > > instance and by TOR in the second). > > > > This is blunt in more than one aspect. That you consider squatting as a > negative is insulting for those people who actually need to rely on > squatting not to be excluded from society.
I'm intrigued how you derived an insult from my statement that it was squatting. > But the argument that this is about, correct my paraphrase if I'm wrong, > "taking over by force part of the namespace" is in my opinion misguided. You're wrong. I was noting that the strings were obtained outside of formal process. In my view, RFC 6761 was a post-facto effort to formalize that squatting. In the sense that post-facto probably isn't the best way of doing things, I suggested 6762 wasn't a particularly good precedent. > Indeed .onion can > do without caring about the DNS, but this is not the point. The point is > to recognize the variety of techniques within the scope of DNS so that > future implementations can rely on the DNS as a correct source for > global information about namespaces. So, I'm now confused. I thought the point of putting ONION in the Special Names Registry was to ensure that it did NOT rely on the DNS. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
