On 9/17/15, 17:03, "DNSOP on behalf of Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of kevin.da...@fcagroup.com> wrote:
>Ed, > I find the document useful, and illuminating, but that it suffers from >one glaring omission -- no substantive discussion of the relationship >between domain names and URIs (the related term "URN"[1] is mentioned in >Section 1.2, but never expanded upon). To be sure, while the "Authority" >component of a URI is not *always* based on a DNS name (or a "domain >name", as distinguished in your Draft), it _usually_ is, and RFC 3986, >aka STD 66, makes the relationship quite explicit: Thanks. I'm stuck in the 90's, what's that web thing? Seriously, the pointers will help. >"However, a globally scoped naming >system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for >URIs intended to have global scope. URI producers should use names >that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not >immediately apparent ..." > >So, names in URI "Authority"s should *look* like DNS-style FQDNs, even if >some other "Authority" resolution-and/or-uniqueness-guaranteeing >mechanism underpins the particular Scheme. The issue that gets me here is the so-called .onion names and the statement (which I've only seen in email) that the labels may exceed DNS limits someday. And this is probably why I waffled when digging into the URI and Domain Names issue. What I need to reconcile is - "yes" to what you quote and "but" he descriptions of the Tor Project documents on how Onion routing avoids the DNS while ... based on some "explicitly implicit" in-band signal. >Since URIs are so commonplace in modern communication mechanisms >(including one little app called web browsing :-), I think the tie-in >between URIs and domain names should at least be mentioned in a >comprehensive "domain names" document. > > > - Kevin > >[1] As per STD 66: "Future specifications and related documentation >should use the general term 'URI' rather than the more restrictive terms >'URL' and 'URN'". Noted. I've been confused on that myself, URN vs. URL. At one time I was scolded for using URL where URN was deemed more appropriate, but I suspect that was a long time ago.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
