On 9/18/15, 9:54, "Alec Muffett" <al...@fb.com> wrote: > > I feel this may need clarification in your section on Tor addressing. Perhaps > it's not **really** domain-naming, but it **looks** much more like it.
The first point of the document is to allow us to answer that "perhaps" - without a definition of Domain Names, we don't know. The question includes - are "Domain Names" just things that look like something or are they things that have a lot of baggage (such as means of assignment [which is different between DNS and distributed hash tables]). I'm not disagreeing, just underlining that until the definition is in place, it's hard for me to be in complete agreement. > > Also, there is some information which requires correction: > > According to an email message, ".onion" names may (in the future) > exceed the length limits of a label imposed on DNS domain names, > reaching 64, 80, or more bytes. [DNSOP1] > > Per this e-mail: > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94362.html > > ...from Nick Mathewson at Tor, he says: > So it's IMO fine to say ".onion addresses are case-insensitive and > will comply with existing DNS limitations for label lengths (63) and > maximum fqdn lengths (253ish)". > Which contradicts draft-lewis-domain-names-00 So - and not to be pointed - but in your email I reference, should I ignore that for the sake of this document? I mean what the message says seems to contradict what you are quoting from Mathewson - which is fine - but this is something unclear to me. (I wasn't aware of Mathweson's message, I'm not subscribed to that list.) > > Also, my name's not "Alex" :-) > > - alec I got 75% of the name right. ;) Sorry about that - I don't read all the letters on a page.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
