On 8/21/15 7:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> valid point, however with respect to 6761 the onion namespace >> substantially predates the existence of 6761 or the consensus documented >> there so I don't think the what if scenario is particularly helpful > > Indeed, and Stephen pointed that out to me privately as well. That > was a mistake in my response to Stephen -- I blew that part. > > Remember, here, that I'm abstaining *not* because I don't want this > request to be honored, but because requesting these special TLDs in > this manner doesn't scale. The .onion request was originally bundled > with half a dozen others, and was split from it for a reason. As we > start to process the other requests, there has to be a line in the > sand. Having everyone who has deployed some non-IETF thing that turns > out to need a TLD reservation ask us to please intervene and reserve > it for them isn't, I think, what 6761 was meant for, and doesn't > scale. That's really the issue for me. > > In any case, my abstaining doesn't have any direct effect on this > document.
yup, I agree. I am fine with that stance, i just want to make sure we have a common view of events, I think that's very important as we address the ongoing problem. thanks joel > I accept that there's IETF consensus for doing this. By > abstaining, I'm simply saying that I can't ballot "no objection", but > that I won't stand in the way of rough consensus. I do think it's > best that we not belabor this further. As the other ballots come in, > we'll almost certainly approve this document, and, given the > importance of Tor, that will be for the best. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
