-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/14/2015 11:37 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> To put it bluntly, from a certain perspective, 6762 and
> dnsop-onion are essentially about the same thing: they are
> formalizing squatting on namespace (by Apple in the first
> instance and by TOR in
On 07/15/2015 09:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> The document defines the use of the name by referring to a couple of
> references, none of which appears to be published in a way that can be
> referenced except by URL.
>
I agree that the URL could be use more foresight, e.g.
https://torproject.org
On 07/15/2015 03:46 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to
> carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some
> other system that used carrot as it's base identifier? On the heels
> of onion's admission to the Special
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/15/2015 03:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I'm intrigued how you derived an insult from my statement
> that it was squatting.
>
I guess that's the proximity of "blunt" and "squatting" that gave me
this impression.
>
> You're wrong.
>
I sta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/17/2015 07:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:39:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
>> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC
>> that de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/17/2015 11:20 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
> question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
>>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an
>>arbit
On 07/17/2015 11:32 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> No. .LOCAL was not already in the root zone. .FOO is.
>
*** Therefore the .FOO label is not available for Special-Use anymore,
end of story. A Special-Use name cannot be an already registered name in
the root zone.
If you referring to e.g., .corp t
On 07/17/2015 12:17 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
>>> question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an
On 07/17/2015 02:57 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> i would argue, by the way, that "onion" is a kind of technology, onion
> routing, of which Tor is the first and best-known but not the last. so,
> i'll prefer .tor.external over .onion.external.
>
> [snip]
>
> compared to alt, yes. note that .external
On 07/17/2015 03:10 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> i apologize for the lack of a pre-existing syntactic framework into
> which tor's names could have been encapsulated from the outset. i
> apologize even more for the fact that tor's perfectly reasonable request
> for .onion is now causing this working
On 07/17/2015 10:39 PM, Ralf Weber wrote:
>
> Am I right that there is leakage of dns requests with
> .onion TLDs? If so isn't that a bug in their software?
>
*** Almost:
1) .onion is not a TLD (sorry, I made the mistake myself to abuse TLD,
although I had defined pTLD for that purpose--as in: p
On 07/17/2015 10:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> A mechanical criterion might be "observable traffic from at least
> 100,000 different IP addresses every day for at least 30 days."
> That'd be a horrible criterion, not least because it's easy
> for a modestly well funded adversary to fake.
>
*** Al
On 07/20/2015 10:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> So... Alec and I did a bit of wordsmithing and what I propose is a
> slight clarification on the existing text, based on this exchange, and
> here it is:
>
>
>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
>number of subdoma
kely that tor-address also ought to be a normative
>> reference.
>>
>> Minor issues: It is not clear that a github reference without version
>> identification is sufficiently stable for a normative reference from an RFC.
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> hellekin started a dis
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/01/2015 07:39 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>
> Tor doesn't leak .onions
>
> If the name is reserved and the process is followed, we'll hopefully
> be able to stop most of the leakage in the DNS.
>
One clear example that was documented earlier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/03/2015 06:00 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> If/Once [tor-rendezvous] is a normative reference, do we consider
> github as stable enough? What if that link disappears?
>
Github is not involved at all in any of the references of the .onion
draf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/03/2015 11:36 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
> Actually, DownRef won't cut it as far as I can tell.
>
> The two documents are not stable. As a github reference,
> they are simply "the most current version of foo".
>
Come on, GitHub is a corporatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/09/2015 05:14 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/
>
I welcome the new draft. I must have missed the discussion for this
pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/21/2015 11:50 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> I think defining -whether- name.onion is a Domain Name will make us
> re-think how Domain Names interoperate amongst protocols beyond the DN
S.
>
Agreed, but why limit to .onion? Can your example str
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/2015 11:56 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> We would like the Design Team to be slightly larger, so are looking
> for 1-2 additional volunteers. Please let the chairs know if you're
> willing to be part of this work.
>
Hello,
I sent you my wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/04/2015 03:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 03:06:04AM -0500,
> Warren Kumari wrote
> a message of 28 lines which said:
>
>> The chairs also asked for volunteers for the design team on October
>> 8th; a number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/26/2015 06:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> Given this context, I was disturbed to hear the design team presentati
on
> in Yokohama
>
So you mean there's an already working team on the revision of RFC6761,
and that team had the time to prepa
On 01/28/2016 05:38 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Suzanne: Since you are one of the BoF initiators here, maybe you can
> clarify a few things.
>
> - How does this relate to the other DNSOP work in this area such as .alt?
>
> - Does this change the work of the 6761bis design team?
>
> - How is it rel
On 02/12/2016 01:48 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/
>
Hello,
This ID seems to require the definition of a new registry, and Section 6
to suggest how this would be used. I think this goes way beyond what
needs to be done in o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/20/2016 01:33 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> And I'm still not convinced there is a problem to solve
> (unless the real issue is "how to prevent the registration of .gnu and
> .bit?")
>
Even if I supported the SUDN of P2P systems draft me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/20/2016 08:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> In a real sense the question at hand is a very practical one:
> “Which of these documents do you think needs less work?"
>
Having read both drafts, and from the perspective of "Names resolved *
with
On 09/22/2016 12:31 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> what community burden is taken in the wide, if a new TLD is
> allocated in 6761 to break out of the DNS.
>
I'm sorry but, what do you mean 'to break out of the DNS'?
==
hk
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSO
On 09/21/2016 11:30 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> None of these named spaces would "fail" to work as sub-spaces of .ALT
> or .arpa or any other community-led IETF tech community managed label.
>
All of them with a requirement for global uniqueness will fail with
.ALT, per .ALT draft. Etc.
> yo
On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
>
> Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>
On 09/27/2016 02:37 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> My opinion really doesn't matter, but I happen to think that, at this
> point, we should evaluate the requested P2P names according to RFC
> 6761 -- you followed the process in effect *at the time*, and jumped
> through many hoops. The process is f
On 09/29/2016 05:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> The one option you have is ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy)
> I don't have a better suggestion.
>
.example is for documentation. You can use .invalid for "fake private
TLD", which makes it very clear that it's not a valid TLD. (Sorry
On 09/30/2016 01:03 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
> Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the
> IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design
> model is "follow the money"
>
> [snip]
>
> If they see inherent value in the string, then they immediately wa
On 10/01/2016 07:12 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> the IETF doesn't have the money for lawyers in that arena.
>
> [snip]
>
> I do not think the IETF should create "Special Names" that conflict
> with the naming process which has been delegated to ICANN.
>
> [snip]
>
> The IETF giving them .onion in
On 10/06/2016 09:22 AM, avri doria wrote:
>
> As for the so-called toxic waste names (i really find that terminology
> problematic)
>
I agree it's a problem to use that kind of vocabulary to convey a
technical context.
> the so called waste pile of usurped names
>
Therefore this is also a probl
On 10/07/2016 06:36 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>
> However, there is something that can be done before: provide a safe place
> in the DNS tree where people can exist without colliding with the rest of
> the tree. We can't prevent people from ignoring it and keep using whatever
> name they want, but a
On 10/07/2016 08:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Special Use Names Summary
>
Hello DNSOP WG,
I let a week pass so that others can comment, but apparently this
summary didn't bring much of them. Indeed I have a troubling issue with
it: how is that actionable? IOW, what's next?
Thank you,
==
hk
LDs), reserved for
special use.
The following six domains relate to security-focused peer-to-peer
systems. They are: ".gnu", ".zkey", ".onion", ".exit", ".i2p", and
".bit".
*
Thank you for your attention and consideratio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/28/2014 05:07 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root
> Service Architecture.
>
>> Location: Hong Kong, HK
>> Date: December 8-9, 2014
>> Hosted by: ISOC-HK
>> Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/09/2014 06:35 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> If you want to do anything useful in counter-censorship then you have
> to think of using steganography
>
*** If you use steganography, that probably means you're sending secrets
over a cleart
, Namecoin, and Tor
- - Remove alternate (confusing) use of dot-tld notation
- - Add Leif Ryge as author
- - Integrate community feedback
If you're tweeting, you're welcome to circulate
https://twitter.com/hellekin/status/548082724980797440 and the #P2PNames
hashtag.
Thank you for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/05/2015 02:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I have read draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-03. I have some
> comments.
>
*** Thank you Andrew for taking the time to review this draft. We shall
take your suggestions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/05/2015 03:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I think you missed Andrew's point.
>
*** Thank you David for shedding some light.
> All 6 technologies use a string that looks like a domain name
> but isn't intended for use in the DNS. Why does it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/06/2015 09:42 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> Which perhaps suggests an W3C approach instead of an IETF one ?
> httpoo://(ToR identifier) (oo for "over onion", although it makes a curious
> acronym)
> httpob://(name coin address)
>
*** Our draf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/07/2015 12:38 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Some of these proposals are in fact using names in domain name slots
> as ways of indicating that the protocol itself ought to be
> different. The hint a name below onion is giving is, "Not really t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Dear list members,
today the French newspaper Le Monde published information on a secret
NSA program, MORECOWBELL [0], that reveals the agency has been using the
DNS infrastructure to monitor host and website activity across the Internet.
This moni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/25/2015 09:01 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> get the IETF to recommend to IANA that these names be reserved
>
*** Yes indeed. Can we get back to the draft-04? It sure will bring up
some interesting if not controversial comments, as some parts cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/05/2015 07:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> But be careful. There be dragons here. Computers updating computers to cont
>> rol who controls the domains?
>
> Computers update computers all the time. It's about establishing
> the right contro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/15/15 21:00, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04, Section 3 (Terminology
> and Conventions Used in This Document):
> "The abbreviation "pTLD" is used in this document to mean a pseudo
> Top-Level Domain, i.e.,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/16/15 22:14, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>
>> Subject: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt
>
> Is this meant to replace or augment
> draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names ?
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/16/15 23:20, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> It seems odd that two documents would be requesting an IANA action for
> ".onion" ?
>
*** Well yes, it sounds like a mistake to me. But we can also consider
it a god-given gift for people who argued agains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/17/15 12:58, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I doubt arguments of this nature are particular helpful.
>
*** I feel obliged to reflect this to you.
> My personal observation is that one of the problems with your draft
>
*** Maybe you should direct com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/17/15 18:28, David Conrad wrote:
>
> What benefit does tying a bunch of unrelated strings together bring
> in arguing for Special Name status?
>
*** I know you already replied that you already commented the P2PNames
draft, but frankly my resp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/17/15 18:39, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> the implications of widening use of RFC 6761.
>
*** You certainly mean: the implications of using RFC 6761, given that
so far, it's only been used by its creator, Apple Inc. in RFC 6762 (if
6761 itself is n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/17/15 19:10, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> The problem is that there is more than one such string, and consensus
depends on
> the least popular string listed.
>
*** RFC 6761 reserves multiple in-addr.arpa. domains, example under
three TLDs, plus .test.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
>
> Do you have feedback on the idea of an interim meeting for DNSOP to address
> these drafts in more depth
>
*** Thank you Suzanne for your clarification.
My only feedback is that such meeting is very welcome. I hope the
discussion will be frui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/18/15 08:01, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>
> Following this discussion from a distance, I cannot help wondering
> whether this is special names stuff might in violate RFC 2860 section 4.3.
>
*** Assignment of special names belongs to "assignment of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/23/15 10:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> if somehow the onion name leaked and ended up in the DNS, it's not a
> big deal
>
*** Well, although you're right as far as *applications* are concerned,
this is still a big deal because humans are using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/15 20:03, Alec Muffett wrote:
> Hi Hellekin!
>
> I would agree that leak avoidance is “a major” rather than “the prime”
> point of having .onion reserved as a TLD.
>
*** Agreed. I came from the privacy side of the argumen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/07/2015 10:56 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>
> Beyond that, does it end up being a cheap way to avoid the ICANN
> process
>
*** It makes sense to follow that process for systems that use the DNS,
not for Special-Use Domain Names. If you would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/06/2015 03:07 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> Logistics details will follow shortly, but we have a webex URL
>
*** As far as I understand, WebEx requires non-free software to work,
which is a problem that will certainly make my participation mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
The authors of draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names are about to
release a new version of the P2PNames draft that integrates the comments
we've received from the P2P systems community. Unfortunately, the
previous draft didn't receive much atten
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/07/2015 03:25 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>
*** Thank you Paul for your note. It's really appreciated.
The fact the P2PNames draft does not mention dnsop is because the
process suggests that RFC6761 requests belong to IESG.
Regards,
==
hk
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/08/2015 01:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Mark,
>
>> "home", "corp" and perhaps "mail" need special handling if we really
>> want to not cause problems for those using those tlds internally.
>
> Why?
>
*** Citing IETF92 slides by Lyman Chapin
-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
-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
-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
-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 be
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
How does one join the meeting with XMPP?
I confirm that the WebEx software is not compatible with my OS.
==
hk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVUiIFXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/13/2015 03:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> we should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else.
> Managing top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the
> DNS -- even if people expect them to be part of a "local root"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/13/2015 05:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> which means that ICANN is sitting on $3.7 million in
> application fees which they will presumably have to refund, as well as
> five withdrawn applications from parties who got partial refunds and
> woul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/15/2015 08:28 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote:
> Hi,
>
*** Thank you for this report. I hope to read the minutes soon.
*
I note that you omitted to mention Namecoin and the .BIT pTLD.
*
You wrote, referring to overlay networks: "Their reluc
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/20/2015 03:12 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/
>
*** 2.3 has a repeat "either".
2.6 reads correctly, but the more important reason IMO is the risk of
privacy leak for the use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/22/2015 04:21 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> While I understand why you feel 2.6 should contain information about
> user's privacy, it currently seems to meet the requirements for
> [RFC6761].
>
*** I consider important that readers keep the prim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/02/2015 10:05 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> You're right. To underscore, it's because of the groups that
> don't engage, and have no responsibility to do so, that the IETF
> has to "defend" itself.
>
>> It wouldn't take much work
>
> Keep in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/07/2015 08:00 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>>
>> o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to
>> subset 4?
>
> what is needed is a process that is less ambiguous and simpler to
> evaluate than RFC6761 to reserve strings in sub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/08/2015 08:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> It further seems to me that an attempt to list names that are
> currently in the public root zone or might someday be in the public
> root zone has a high risk of being simply backwards if the purpose
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/08/2015 02:33 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> But I keep coming to this, decidedly non-engineering, question: What
> if someone uses RFC 6761 to get an offensive name registered as a
> special-use domain name?
>
TL;DR: you cannot avoid subjecti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/09/2015 12:53 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>
I don't think I can make it to Prague,
> Here is a short list:
>
> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and I
CANN
> on this topic.
>
How did the RFC6761 reservations happ
81 matches
Mail list logo
