-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Bob Harold wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley
> wrote:
>
>> ... I would also support (as I have heard others say before, and
>> as I think I have also said) a separate document that provides
>> advice to anybody else planning to de
In message <20150521163003.70706.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
>
> >I think reserving a DNS-like namespace anchor of ALT is unnecessary; as
> >I mentioned in my comments about the ONION draft, you have a choice of
> >anywhere in the namespace to place that anchor, and there are an
> >e
In message , "Joe Abley" writ
es:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 20 May 2015, at 22:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> > From the discussion on the mailing list, this draft appears to have
> > support in the working group. The authors have requested a Call for
> > Adoption. The chairs want to move forward with th
On May 21, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
> Not to complicate matters, but CA/B-Forum are saying the following:
>
> https://cabforum.org/2015/02/18/ballot-144-validation-rules-dot-onion-names/
>
>> 5. CAs MUST NOT issue a Certificate that includes a Domain Name where .onion
>> is in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/21/2015 04:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> It would make sense to call it a reserved special-use top-level domain
name.
> It's not a top-level domain in the DNS, though.
> I think that's the distinction to make.
>
*** A distinction that the P2PN
On May 21, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
> It would be a shame for them to nitpick the rules because "special purpose
> namespace" != "TLD"?
It would make sense to call it a reserved special-use top-level domain name.
It's not a top-level domain in the DNS, though. I think that's th
It would be a shame for them to nitpick the rules because "special purpose namespace" !=
"TLD"?
Is the CAB really likely to waste its time on that? I don't know them, I
have no idea. I'd hope they had better things to worry about if it's
abundantly clear whether we've declared .onion to be
> On May 21, 2015, at 4:41 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> I share the concerns about calling .onion a TLD, but I think that's
> easily fixable by calling it something like a special purpose
> namespace, then going through the document and changing it where
> appropriate.
Not to complicate matters,
>They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be unique and, ideally,
>descriptive.
>
>Is something that in reality won't happen, ...
Sure it will, for the same reason that the alt.* newsgroups worked and
continue to work.
Remember, this isn't the DNS. The way you stake a claim to alt.foo is
On May 21, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
> Is something that in reality won’t happen, and we will be back to square one.
> “foo.ALT” is going to be very popular and without a registry to control the
> namespace you’ll end up in a situation where more than one application will
> atte
On May 21, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> To your point though, I don't think we can ever practically prevent a query
> being sent to the DNS. There are no controls available to us that would allow
> us to do that.
This is unfortunately true. However, there are varying degrees of contro
Hi Warren,
Just finished reading the draft (for ALT), but still think this is not going to
help.
The statement:
They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be unique and, ideally,
descriptive.
Is something that in reality won’t happen, and we will be back to square one.
“foo.ALT” is going
Hi Bob,
On 21 May 2015, at 12:55, Bob Harold wrote:
The "onion.eff.org" idea only solves half of the problems - it would
prevent others from using the domain for something else, but it fails
to
provide the required privacy - part of the requirement is that the
onion
names NOT be sent to DNS
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> ...
> I would also support (as I have heard others say before, and as I think I
> have also said) a separate document that provides advice to anybody else
> planning to deploy code that uses a DNS-like namespace that is not the DNS.
> Such peopl
>Unfortunately, I do not think this is good advice. Domain registrations have
>to
>be renewed, ...
There are domain registrations that don't have to be renewed, but I
still agree with your advice. We don't want to tell people to balance
a long term design on a short term foundation.
R's,
Joh
>I think reserving a DNS-like namespace anchor of ALT is unnecessary; as
>I mentioned in my comments about the ONION draft, you have a choice of
>anywhere in the namespace to place that anchor, and there are an
>enormous number existing places in the DNS where you can reserve a name
>without d
I've read, I support, I will continue to read and contribute.
-tom
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On May 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Such people should either make their names unambiguously different from
>> those used in the DNS, or should anchor them somewhere else in the namespace
>> where defensive registrations in the DNS are less contentious. For example,
>> if the Tor
Hi Tim,
On 20 May 2015, at 22:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
From the discussion on the mailing list, this draft appears to have
support in the working group. The authors have requested a Call for
Adoption. The chairs want to move forward with this draft if it has
consensus support.
This starts a
19 matches
Mail list logo
