hellekin wrote: > On 07/17/2015 07:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:39:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > >> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an > >> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC > >> that describes as much as is possible to describe about that use. > > Why is an IANA-maintained registry a good idea? > > > The discussion is drifting away from .onion.
yes, and deliberately so, since .onion is an example of a wider problem. > > It's also drifting away from at least half the current applications for > Special-Use Domain Names, the half that technically CANNOT SHARE the > same registry, and that technically CANNOT BE ADMINISTERED by a third > party. this is an ietf working group about dns. by charter, any discussion of how to interoperate while providing new functionality is on-topic. as i just wrote up-thread, the ietf currently makes no recommendation for encoding non-dns names in an unambiguous and portable way so that software authors of name lookup libraries can safely encode and decode non-dns names without fear of collision. the idea of first use being the only arbiter of reservation, and of such reservation being the only guarantor of non-collision, makes some of us worry that there are two long lines marching toward us: one being new gTLD's that have not been proposed yet, and the other being new applications that haven't been invented yet. the internet loves scale. thus this thread. i apologize for the lack of a pre-existing syntactic framework into which tor's names could have been encapsulated from the outset. i apologize even more for the fact that tor's perfectly reasonable request for .onion is now causing this working group to consider scaling factors which tor by itself would not have cared about. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
