Ted, On Jul 18, 2015, at 12:16 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > With all due respect, this is a classic mistake that geeks make: thinking > that there can be some objective criterion or set of criteria that would make > decisions simple. The reality is that to make criteria of this sort > objective would require a solution to the halting problem.
And this is a classic mistake geeks make: that there has to be a perfect set of criteria for all scenarios. This demand for the perfect instead of the good enough has derailed so much of what the IETF does, it's sad to see it here as well. As I've said several times, I believe there are objective criteria that would cover the majority of cases. For example, the deployed base of TOR appears sufficiently large in terms of orders of magnitude as to justify moving ONION to Special Names. Do you disagree that this would be an objective criteria? Of course, there are _always_ corner cases that will require subjective evaluations. However, because this is true does not preclude coming up with objective criteria that allows us to deal with et majority of cases. > It's pretty clear that .onion in particular does satisfy the non-objective > criteria we currently have. Oh, and what "non-objective" criteria would those be? Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
