> valid point, however with respect to 6761 the onion namespace > substantially predates the existence of 6761 or the consensus documented > there so I don't think the what if scenario is particularly helpful
Indeed, and Stephen pointed that out to me privately as well. That was a mistake in my response to Stephen -- I blew that part. Remember, here, that I'm abstaining *not* because I don't want this request to be honored, but because requesting these special TLDs in this manner doesn't scale. The .onion request was originally bundled with half a dozen others, and was split from it for a reason. As we start to process the other requests, there has to be a line in the sand. Having everyone who has deployed some non-IETF thing that turns out to need a TLD reservation ask us to please intervene and reserve it for them isn't, I think, what 6761 was meant for, and doesn't scale. That's really the issue for me. In any case, my abstaining doesn't have any direct effect on this document. I accept that there's IETF consensus for doing this. By abstaining, I'm simply saying that I can't ballot "no objection", but that I won't stand in the way of rough consensus. I do think it's best that we not belabor this further. As the other ballots come in, we'll almost certainly approve this document, and, given the importance of Tor, that will be for the best. Barry _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
