Hi Ed, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:26:43PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: > I'm sympathetic to the use the path of least resistance - e.g., use names > that syntactically are DNS names
I note that the Subject: line of your note still contains a vestigial reference to the thread I started recently on this, and your message nevertheless returns to collapsing "domain names" and "DNS names". I don't know whether I've simply failed to explain the distinction I'm trying to make, or whether you reject the premise. Could you please be clear about which it is? To me, the _point_ of onion. is that it is not a DNS name. You're right that it has the same syntax -- because it is a domain name, but not (intended to be) a DNS name. The registration of the name in the special use registry would achieve that end. You might object that this distinction is extremely hard, because there's nothing about the label itself to signal this namespace shift, and unaware clients will therefore automatically just treat such names as DNS names, not special-use domain names. I happen to agree with that, but we cannot hold back this tide: it was let loose once local. became an in-band protocol switch, without any registration, in Apple's widely-deployed Bonjour service. We might wish that people hadn't abused the namespace to turn it into protocol switches as well as everything else, but the history of SRV through Bonjour shows that this technique is popular and unlikely to go away. Commanding the tide to stay back when you are neck deep in water is not likely to work. Therefore, I claim, we need to make some clear distinctions and understand what has actually happened, and then adjust to the new reality. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
