> >> 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.
Which could be done by tuning https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-06 with some twists: - Deprecating that part of RFC6761 that allowed the .ONION request, shutting this door; - Considering whether .alt or .external would be the string for such uses (.ext, perhaps ?); - Creating a registry for .alt names that doesn't carry an uniqueness guarantee but can guide developers so they don't use names already declared to be used ; - Automatically create starting entries for such a registry including known names such as .onion.alt/external, .zeroconf.alt/external, .bonjour.alt/external so applications can move to those names at some point. Rubens _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
