hellekin wrote: > On 07/17/2015 02:57 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> i would argue, by the way, that "onion" is a kind of technology, onion >> routing, of which Tor is the first and best-known but not the last. so, >> i'll prefer .tor.external over .onion.external. >> >> [snip] >> >> compared to alt, yes. note that .external is long on purpose-- to avoid >> conflict with nature. >> > *** By "conflict with nature" do you mean that having to type .external > with one thumb would strain it faster, leading to an obsolescence of > hand-held devices?
snark won't advance this discussion. i'm choosing to reply. my default is to just hit delete. > More seriously, does that mean you're opposing the .onion draft, or are > you simply drifting away to the later work on RFC6761bis? I'm asking > because the authors requested .onion, not .tor, nor .tor.alt, nor > .tor.external. by 6761, .ONION is a valid request and your papers are in order. i don't love it and i wish we had a more scalable framework, but by the rules of this game, .ONION should be approved. but we should also improve the rules to something scalable, like a single exit gateway from the internet namespace into non-internet namespaces. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
