Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-15 Thread Tom Ritter
On 23 May 2015 at 09:35, Richard Barnes wrote: > tl;dr: Ship it. ++ Nits: - Noted for the first time that the IETF boilerplate uses the oxford comma. (I like the Oxford comma, but it seems most don't.) - "visually or apparently semantically similar to the desired service" - not sure what "or a

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-09 Thread Edward Lewis
On 6/5/15, 21:16, "Warren Kumari" wrote: >I think that such a list / resource would be a fine idea, but I think >that: >A: it would be good to avoid calling it a "registry" (that term has >specific meaning within the DNS world), and Not just in the DNS world. To research this response, I looked

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-05 Thread John R Levine
As I mentioned before, given that the whole point of .alt is that people are implementing things that look like DNS names but are resolved in some other way, the winner of any such conflict is the one with widely used running code. Yah. If I'm launching a new namespace that resolves based upon ,

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-05 Thread Warren Kumari
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT >>> registry in order for .ALT to be able to >>address anything other than experimental uses. >>And I think this would actually be a good thing. >> >>If we created a registry

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-04 Thread John Levine
>I agree that if you had a registry that had no unique entry, there'd >be no problem. But if you have to be prepared for identifier >collisions anyway, what use is the registry? It tells you where to find out about foo.alt if you want to use that particular un-DNS hack. Other than that, not much

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-04 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:16:05PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote: > > I think the difference is that ".alt" names should not be leaked into DNS, > but should be kept private. But there will be such leaks, so that's no defence. And for local use, a DNS leak wouldn't be an issue either, some would argue

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-04 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:53:02PM -, John Levine wrote: > I think the key difference would be that it would accept any number of > entries for the same string I thought that Ted's idea was uniqueness. (Otherwise there wouldn't be a landrush.) I agree that if you had a registry that had no u

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-04 Thread John Levine
>> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT registry >> in order for .ALT to be able to >address anything other than experimental uses. >And I think this would actually be a good thing. > >If we created a registry for alt, how would alt not be just another >TLD with exac

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-04 Thread Bob Harold
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > > This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT > registry in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than > experimental uses. > And I thin

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-06-04 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT registry > in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than experimental uses. And I think this would actually be a good thing. If we created a registry f

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-23 Thread Richard Barnes
tl;dr: Ship it. On adoption: I agree that we should adopt this document. On WGLC: I have reviewed this document, and I think it's generally in fine shape to send to the IESG. I have included a few comments below, but they're mostly editorial. The only issue of any substance is that I would pref

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-23 Thread Richard Barnes
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:20 PM, John R Levine wrote: > 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 abo

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread str4d
-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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread hellekin
-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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Ted Lemon
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread John R Levine
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Alec Muffett
> 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,

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread John Levine
>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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Ted Lemon
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Ted Lemon
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Francisco Obispo
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Joe Abley
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Bob Harold
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread John Levine
>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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Tom Ritter
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-21 Thread Ted Lemon
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

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-20 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote: >> On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >>> The draft can be found here: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/ >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-20 Thread Warren Kumari
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: > >> The draft can be found here: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/ >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 >> >> Please review the d

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-20 Thread Warren Kumari
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Greetings, > > From the outcome of the Interim meeting, and discussion on the list, this > draft appears to both have strong support and address the problem space of > RFC 6761. The authors have requested a Call for Adoption. The chairs wan

Re: [DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-20 Thread Joe Abley
On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote: The draft can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. I have read this document. I suppo

[DNSOP] Adoption and Working Group Last Call for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld

2015-05-20 Thread Tim Wicinski
Greetings, From the outcome of the Interim meeting, and discussion on the list, this draft appears to both have strong support and address the problem space of RFC 6761. The authors have requested a Call for Adoption. The chairs want to move forward with this draft if it has consensus suppor