Hi Alec,
You wrote:
> To address Edward’s implicit request for information - rather than to
> address his request for document pointers - I’d like to share that I
> sketched how onion addressing works in previous discussion at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13758.ht
At Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:19:34 -0400,
Donald Eastlake wrote:
> > - Section 4.1
> >
> >In order to maintain the security properties of this protocol, a
> >client MUST NOT use the same Client Cookie value for requests to all
> >servers.
> >
> > Specifically what does this mean? Does thi
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Second try...
>
> > On Jul 21, 2015, at 4:06 AM 7/21/15, Ralph Droms (rdroms) <
> rdr...@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi - The dnssd chairs would like to get some reviews of
> draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-01, "On Interoperation of Labels Betw
On Aug 10, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great job
> of capturing the actual needs here. It doesn't define what the larger
> namespace encompassing the DNS is or could be well, and it doesn't provide a
> way to note
On 08/10/2015 01:50 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> It does a fine job with .example since that's fundamentally
> just a reservation, but .onion is showing its warts.
>
Hi Ted,
I fully agree with Alec, and do not understand how .onion would differ
from .example in that case, especially since as we're
Hi Alec,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> Hi Ted, thanks for the feedback.
>
> I don’t see any question in the above which impinges upon the draft so
> much as being related to internal operations of IETF and/or DNSOP, but I’d
> like to reinforce that CA/B-Forum are appa
>> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great job
>> of capturing the actual needs here.
Agreed. It seems to me that there are two somewhat separate things going on
here.
One is the .ONION issue. It's a domain name string that has a
coordinated use that is imple
Hi again, Ted!
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> […]
> I think the Internet community needs to understand that a reservation in the
> encompassing name space means that no gTLD with the same string will be
> permitted in the DNS and understand who has the right specify the p
Five years is not enough. Think in terms of 20 to 50 years.
On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great
>>> job of capturing the actual needs here.
>
> Agreed. It seems to me that there are two somewhat separat
In message <20150810191030.13804.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great j
> ob of capturing the actual needs here.
>
> Agreed. It seems to me that there are two somewhat separate things going on
> here.
>
> One is th
On 10 Aug 2015, at 13:25, Alec Muffett wrote:
So, by this analysis I think Onions in http (and by extension https)
are fine.
Not to mention, appropriate. :-)
If the smiley means "they're already deployed, so we don't get to talk
about whether they're appropriate", then fine, but that's why
Five years is not enough. Think in terms of 20 to 50 years.
Oh, of course. I was thinking of five years as the review cycle for
names that people might want to reconsider.
Mark wrote:
If .BELKIN is reserved then it is not available to *anyone* including
Belkin. The simplist fix for .BELKI
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>
> If the smiley means "they're already deployed, so we don't get to talk about
> whether they're appropriate", then fine, but that's why a bunch of people are
> complaining about the precedent this sets. If the smiley means "this is a
> g
In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC 7230)
should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were acceptable
for those schemes, so that the following language from RFC 7320 (a BCP) could
be invoked against any attempt by an app – Onion or anyone e
Kevin,
On 11 Aug 2015, at 6:54 am, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
>
> In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC
> 7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
> acceptable for those schemes, so that the following language from RFC 7320 (a
Kevin,
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA)
> wrote:
>
> In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC
> 7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
> acceptable for those schemes, so that the following language from RFC 732
Thank you for the careful review! Comments below, in an shortened form.
On 10 Aug 2015, at 17:09, Black, David wrote:
Major Issues:
[BCP] Is BCP status appropriate for this draft?
Based on earlier comments, we have chosen to change this to
Informational for the next draft.
[DownRef] idnit
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 07:25:23PM +, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> Some Googling suggests that the http:// scheme is defined in RFC 2616, which
> - to summarise - again does not mandate DNS.
>
I'm by no means an expert on the scheme, but I think following the
references means that 2616 does in f
18 matches
Mail list logo
