On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Tom Ritter wrote:
> On 12 May 2015 at 07:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > If the Tor Browser has its own resolver that is used just by it and
> > that is not a separate service installed with the expectation that
> > other clients will use it, then it seems to me t
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:17 AM, hellekin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 05/12/2015 09:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > Is your complaint that appelbaum-dnsop-onion reads to you as though
> > such special applications are the only way to do this? If so, th
On 12 May 2015 at 07:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> If the Tor Browser has its own resolver that is used just by it and
> that is not a separate service installed with the expectation that
> other clients will use it, then it seems to me the built-in Tor
> resolver is part of the application, even i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2015 09:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Is your complaint that appelbaum-dnsop-onion reads to you as though
> such special applications are the only way to do this? If so, then
> you're right that it needs adjustment.
>
*** Yes, my conc
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:06:44AM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> Let's see. "Naked firefox" is one case. The TBB is another. SSH is
> yet another. All three match the "application" case. But only the TBB
> comes with a built-in Tor resolver (and matches the "name resolution API
> or library" case.)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:12:54AM +, Alec Muffett wrote:
> I believe that this demonstrates the condition you were looking for?
Yes, and it's exactly the model I had in mind, and it also
demonstrates that users do in fact need to use different software in
order to access onion. Moreover, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2015 04:18 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>> On May 12, 2015, at 7:44 AM, hellekin wrote:
>>
>> *** So in my understanding of the scope boundaries of RFC6761 IANA
>> considerations, which seems to be the main difference between our
>> drafts and
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:29 AM, hellekin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 05/11/2015 08:21 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>>
>> This might be an issue so long as your threat model includes blindly
>> unaware users who are typing ".onion" addresses into non-Tor-capable
>>
> On May 12, 2015, at 7:44 AM, hellekin wrote:
>
> *** So in my understanding of the scope boundaries of RFC6761 IANA
> considerations, which seems to be the main difference between our drafts
> and our respective positions, the former is "an application", while the
> latter bundles "an applicati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/12/2015 03:12 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> ... both Firefox...
> One of them - the Tor Browser - is using a SOCKS daemon which knows
> that “.onion” is special and shouldn’t be looked up in the public DNS.
>
*** So in my understanding of the s
1. the users considerations pretend that users must use onion-aware
software in order to access Onionspace, but I assert that you and I can
use an ordinary Web browser, type in a .onion address, and access the
requested service. Not only OnionTLD conflicts with P2PNames on that
point, it also con
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:29:02PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> >
> *** How can you fail to see that P2PNames says "Users can use these
> names as they would other domain names", while OnionTLD says they cannot
> ?
>
I think people can see that, and they disagree with you.
If you put an onion name i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/11/2015 08:21 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> This might be an issue so long as your threat model includes blindly
> unaware users who are typing ".onion" addresses into non-Tor-capable
> browsers in the (presumably first-time) expectation that it
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
> Hi Hellekin!
>
> >Since Alec Muffett seems to have better things to do
>
> I'm sorry if you've been waiting for my input - I am not the primary
> author of the document; Jacob Appelbaum's name is in the document's
> title for a good reason,
Hi there,
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:15:47PM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 came as way to fast-track the
> processing of .onion special-use TLD, as the P2PNames draft was
> considered too controversial (and maybe too complicated?).
As one of the people who has objec
Hi Hellekin!
>Since Alec Muffett seems to have better things to do
I'm sorry if you've been waiting for my input - I am not the primary
author of the document; Jacob Appelbaum's name is in the document's
title for a good reason, and my involvement has been one of tuning a
few paragraphs, providi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Since Alec Muffett seems to have better things to do, I feel obligated
to do what he should have done before publishing his draft: comparing
the IANA Considerations for .onion in the
draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04 (P2PNames) and
draft-a
17 matches
Mail list logo
