On 18 July 2015 at 04:25, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Major issues: It seems to this reviewer that at least the definition of how
> to use these names, reference tor-rendezvous, needs to be a normative
> reference. It appears likely that tor-address also ought to be a normative
> reference.
>
> Mino
On 16 July 2015 at 00:44, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> I don't see any mention of the CAB Forum stuff in the draft. Has anyone
> done the analysis to see if CAB Forum members really will issue certs to
> .onion addresses if we do this? Do they issue certs for .example or .local
> today?
Not only wil
As an idea: some months ago dkg looked at hooking up unbound to an
upstream resolver over TCP/TLS. It works, but it isn't ideal right
now. Our findings:
A) client and server together negotiate TLS 1.2 (that's good!)
B) client doesn't appear to even try to validate the certificate
C) client do
On 23 May 2015 at 09:35, Richard Barnes wrote:
> tl;dr: Ship it.
++
Nits:
- Noted for the first time that the IETF boilerplate uses the oxford
comma. (I like the Oxford comma, but it seems most don't.)
- "visually or apparently semantically similar to the desired
service" - not sure what "or a
I've read, I support, I will continue to read and contribute.
-tom
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 20 May 2015 at 10:54, John Levine wrote:
>>Because (AIUI) DBOUND is intended to specify security-relevant zone cuts
>>*in DNS* using it to specify names that are reserved in DNS but not _in_
>>DNS might come out a little weird... but it seems like the most relevant
>>place to at least take the
On 5/19/15 5:18 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> 4. It's been pointed out that the maintenance of the special use names
> registry is complicated by the fact that people used to be able to
> assume the root zone was relatively stable, and this assumption has
> become less defensible. (ICANN is not curren
On 12 May 2015 at 07:23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> If the Tor Browser has its own resolver that is used just by it and
> that is not a separate service installed with the expectation that
> other clients will use it, then it seems to me the built-in Tor
> resolver is part of the application, even i
On 17 March 2015 at 10:49, David Conrad wrote:
>> On 17 March 2015 at 10:36, David Cake wrote:
>>
>> I'm generally in favour of this proposal.
>
> +1
I also support this draft.
CA issuance for .onion post-October is dependent on this draft, and
external reliance on an RFC (or lack of RFC) by so
