> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA)
> wrote:
>
> In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC
> 7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
> acceptable for those schemes,
I generally try to avoid enumerating things that a
.onion
Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA)
mailto:kevin.da...@fcagroup.com>> wrote:
In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC 7230)
should have probably enumerated clearly which name registrie
> "Darcy" == Darcy Kevin (FCA) writes:
Darcy>In retrospect, the definition of the
Darcy> http and
Darcy> https schemes (i.e. RFC 7230) should
Darcy> have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
Darcy> acceptable for those schemes, so that the fo
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 07:25:23PM +, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> Some Googling suggests that the http:// scheme is defined in RFC 2616, which
> - to summarise - again does not mandate DNS.
>
I'm by no means an expert on the scheme, but I think following the
references means that 2616 does in f
Kevin,
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA)
> wrote:
>
> In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC
> 7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
> acceptable for those schemes, so that the following language from RFC 732
Kevin,
On 11 Aug 2015, at 6:54 am, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
>
> In retrospect, the definition of the “http” and “https” schemes (i.e. RFC
> 7230) should have probably enumerated clearly which name registries were
> acceptable for those schemes, so that the following language from RFC 7320 (a
Barnes; dnsop@ietf.org;
Mark Nottingham
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion
Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Joe Hildebrand
mailto:hil...@cursive.net>> wrote:
If the smiley means "they're already deployed, so we don't get t
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>
> If the smiley means "they're already deployed, so we don't get to talk about
> whether they're appropriate", then fine, but that's why a bunch of people are
> complaining about the precedent this sets. If the smiley means "this is a
> g
Five years is not enough. Think in terms of 20 to 50 years.
Oh, of course. I was thinking of five years as the review cycle for
names that people might want to reconsider.
Mark wrote:
If .BELKIN is reserved then it is not available to *anyone* including
Belkin. The simplist fix for .BELKI
On 10 Aug 2015, at 13:25, Alec Muffett wrote:
So, by this analysis I think Onions in http (and by extension https)
are fine.
Not to mention, appropriate. :-)
If the smiley means "they're already deployed, so we don't get to talk
about whether they're appropriate", then fine, but that's why
In message <20150810191030.13804.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great j
> ob of capturing the actual needs here.
>
> Agreed. It seems to me that there are two somewhat separate things going on
> here.
>
> One is th
Five years is not enough. Think in terms of 20 to 50 years.
On Aug 10, 2015, at 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great
>>> job of capturing the actual needs here.
>
> Agreed. It seems to me that there are two somewhat separat
Hi again, Ted!
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> […]
> I think the Internet community needs to understand that a reservation in the
> encompassing name space means that no gTLD with the same string will be
> permitted in the DNS and understand who has the right specify the p
>> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great job
>> of capturing the actual needs here.
Agreed. It seems to me that there are two somewhat separate things going on
here.
One is the .ONION issue. It's a domain name string that has a
coordinated use that is imple
Hi Alec,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> Hi Ted, thanks for the feedback.
>
> I don’t see any question in the above which impinges upon the draft so
> much as being related to internal operations of IETF and/or DNSOP, but I’d
> like to reinforce that CA/B-Forum are appa
On 08/10/2015 01:50 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> It does a fine job with .example since that's fundamentally
> just a reservation, but .onion is showing its warts.
>
Hi Ted,
I fully agree with Alec, and do not understand how .onion would differ
from .example in that case, especially since as we're
On Aug 10, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> I believe that the registry we have currently defined doesn't do a great job
> of capturing the actual needs here. It doesn't define what the larger
> namespace encompassing the DNS is or could be well, and it doesn't provide a
> way to note
Hi Alec,
You wrote:
> To address Edward’s implicit request for information - rather than to
> address his request for document pointers - I’d like to share that I
> sketched how onion addressing works in previous discussion at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13758.ht
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> … the documents I have access to do not give me a deep enough sense
> of, well, why the names are different from DNS domain names. I presume
> they are from the email discussion, but what I am reading in the documents
> - and I stress "reading
In message <5d60ceeb-a781-4db4-aad6-9ef57a482...@difference.com.au>, David Cake
writes:
>
> > On 16 Jul 2015, at 4:11 am, Francisco Obispo
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This was proposed in the working group. It obviously doesn't work,
> >> first because TOR can't come up with that kind of money, but
On 8/7/15, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 8/7/15, 10:29, "DNSOP on behalf of Wendy Seltzer"
> wrote:
>
>>You might find https://spec.torproject.org/ helpful as a listing of
>>various tor specs and design documents, if you prefer that to a git
>>repository.
>
> That's the site I've been using.
>
What d
Thanks. That is indeed what I'm working on. And yes, that description is
clear and helpful and "deprecates" (in my mind) the notion that the names
were too long for the DNS.
(Just wish it was that clear in a Tor document. ;) ...said for the purposes
of the last call.)
On 8/7/15, 11:38, "Chris B
>
> why the names are different from DNS domain names.
I think this is where Andrew's distinction between "the DNS" and a larger
concept of name space is needed. Onion names are different in that they are
names for a different resolution process which uses a distributed hash
table operated by th
On 8/7/15, 10:29, "DNSOP on behalf of Wendy Seltzer"
wrote:
>You might find https://spec.torproject.org/ helpful as a listing of
>various tor specs and design documents, if you prefer that to a git
>repository.
That's the site I've been using.
>
>While Tor has not necessarily used IETF convent
On 08/07/2015 09:50 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> (The last call is still on...)
>
> I am trying to write another document and wanted to include descriptions
> of ".onion" names.
>
> I'm seeking authoritative references but am having some trouble doing so.
> This isn't meant to be a replay of my prev
(The last call is still on...)
I am trying to write another document and wanted to include descriptions
of ".onion" names.
I'm seeking authoritative references but am having some trouble doing so.
This isn't meant to be a replay of my previous comment that the draft
under discussion is poorly sup
> On 16 Jul 2015, at 4:11 am, Francisco Obispo wrote:
>
>
>> This was proposed in the working group. It obviously doesn't work, first
>> because TOR can't come up with that kind of money, but second because TOR
>> doesn't want a TLD (hellekin's erroneous statements notwithstanding). What
--On Monday, July 20, 2015 13:50 -0400 Bob Harold
wrote:
> This thread has taught me more about the .onion names - thanks
> for that. But I would have to agree with those that think this
> bit of explanation is unnecessary to the RFC and should be
> excluded, rather than attempting to clarify i
Hi,
While I guess most of you are in Prague having discussions about these things,
I hope you won’t mind someone who is unable to attend but who follows your work
on the mailing lists from expressing an opinion...
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 08:39, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> we only need one cutout, some
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> So... Alec and I did a bit of wordsmithing and what I propose is a slight
> clarification on the existing text, based on this exchange, and here it is:
>
>
>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
>number of
On 07/20/2015 10:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> So... Alec and I did a bit of wordsmithing and what I propose is a
> slight clarification on the existing text, based on this exchange, and
> here it is:
>
>
>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
>number of subdoma
>For clarity, I believe ICANN has placed the delegation of .CORP on hold
>indefinitely.
>I do not believe ICANN has stated that .CORP "will not be delegated." Part of
>the
>reason for this discussion is due to this fact.
Since the new gTLD program still has five active applications for
.CORP, ea
So... Alec and I did a bit of wordsmithing and what I propose is a
slight clarification on the existing text, based on this exchange, and
here it is:
Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
number of subdomain components. Only the first first label to the
lef
>
> Yes, there is an HTTP Host header. Yes, responses vary by the *value* but
> not by the *structure*. As far as Apache is concerned, for instance, I would
> imagine it's doing a string compare without counting or considering dots. By
> discussing an arbitrary number of components, that par
On 20 Jul 2015, at 10:22, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 5:53 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
>> Of course, ICANN has already determined that .corp does pose a security
>> issue of sufficient significance that .corp will not be delegated.
>
> For clarity, I believe ICANN has placed the deleg
David,
On Jul 20, 2015, at 5:53 AM, David Cake wrote:
> Of course, ICANN has already determined that .corp does pose a security issue
> of sufficient significance that .corp will not be delegated.
For clarity, I believe ICANN has placed the delegation of .CORP on hold
indefinitely. I do not b
Hi David,
On 7/20/15 6:06 AM, David Cake wrote:
> As someone with moderate experience in both DNS and web server
> configuration, FWIW I found the meaning relatively obvious. The notion
> that HTTP Host headers might be used to change web server response
> independent of name resolution (e.g. that
As someone with moderate experience in both DNS and web server configuration,
FWIW I found the meaning relatively obvious. The notion that HTTP Host headers
might be used to change web server response independent of name resolution
(e.g. that two names that return identical responses to every po
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 10:52 pm, hellekin wrote:
>
> On 07/17/2015 11:32 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>>
>> No. .LOCAL was not already in the root zone. .FOO is.
>>
> *** Therefore the .FOO label is not available for Special-Use anymore,
> end of story. A Special-Use name cannot be an already registe
There are plausible, if unlikely, circumstances in which a fork, not just of
the Tor project software itself, but of the entire project including the
specific URL, might happen. While this argument is an attempt at a reductio ab
absurdum, I do not think it is - the circumstance described is unli
> On 16 Jul 2015, at 3:35 am, Francisco Obispo wrote:
>
> +1.
>
> I don’t think IETF should be chasing around widely used TLDs and trying to
> block them, it will be a never ending chase.
>
> We are trying to mitigate against unknowns and perhaps the best solution is
> to have the TOR folks
> On 15 Jul 2015, at 8:42 pm, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 4. Caching DNS Servers and
> 5. Authoritative DNS Servers
>
> I really believe that for DNS elements, there should be no change. By
> intent, the onion names are not to be presented to the DNS by what's in
> category 2 and 3 (Applications and
* Stephane Bortzmeyer:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 02:22:58PM -0700,
> Francisco Obispo wrote
> a message of 48 lines which said:
>
>> Well, even worse, what happens if decides
>> to create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean
>> that we should automatically block it?
>
> No n
On 7/18/15 12:16 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 01:35 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> To be honest, I doubt this. It assumes folks who are developing
>> these non-DNS protocols know/care about what the IETF thinks.
> I suspect that more do than you think. However, what they think
> about the I
On 07/17/2015 10:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> A mechanical criterion might be "observable traffic from at least
> 100,000 different IP addresses every day for at least 30 days."
> That'd be a horrible criterion, not least because it's easy
> for a modestly well funded adversary to fake.
>
*** Al
>> 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. ...
>As I've said several times, I believe there are objective criteria that would
>cover the majority of cases. ...
P
On 07/17/2015 07:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Oh, and what "non-objective" criteria would those be?
The ones in the special-names RFC, which the author and the working
group apparently considered sufficient. Which, I am afraid, contradicts
the point you were making about how we can have incomple
Ted,
On Jul 18, 2015, at 12:16 AM, Ted Lemon 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 wou
On 07/17/2015 01:35 AM, David Conrad wrote:
To be honest, I doubt this. It assumes folks who are developing these non-DNS
protocols know/care about what the IETF thinks.
I suspect that more do than you think. However, what they think about
the IETF is that we have a very heavyweight process,
On 07/17/2015 01:17 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
I personally have no position whether we shut the door before or after .ONION;
there is already a number of names in this category so if .onion was the first
I would strongly oppose its adoption, but since it's not, it doesn't care for
the scale probl
> Em 17/07/2015, à(s) 17:08:000, Ted Lemon escreveu:
>
> On 07/17/2015 12:40 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>> - Deprecating that part of RFC6761 that allowed the .ONION request, shutting
>> this door;
> This would likely result in Warren's draft never getting consensus, so be
> careful what you ask f
On 07/17/2015 12:40 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
- Deprecating that part of RFC6761 that allowed the .ONION request, shutting
this door;
This would likely result in Warren's draft never getting consensus, so
be careful what you ask for. If you want to make this change, it would
be better to do it
On 07/17/2015 03:10 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> i apologize for the lack of a pre-existing syntactic framework into
> which tor's names could have been encapsulated from the outset. i
> apologize even more for the fact that tor's perfectly reasonable request
> for .onion is now causing this working
>
>> More seriously, does that mean you're opposing the .onion draft, or are
>> you simply drifting away to the later work on RFC6761bis? I'm asking
>> because the authors requested .onion, not .tor, nor .tor.alt, nor
>> .tor.external.
>
> by 6761, .ONION is a valid request and your papers are i
+1
The issue not being with ONION per se, but with the .CARROTs and the
.FOOs of the future, having a reserved TLD/namespace with a registry
along with a well defined process on how to do reserve names should be
the way to go.
We also need to close the doors to those who decide to ignore wha
hellekin wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 02:57 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> i would argue, by the way, that "onion" is a kind of technology, onion
>> routing, of which Tor is the first and best-known but not the last. so,
>> i'll prefer .tor.external over .onion.external.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> compared to alt, y
On 07/17/2015 02:57 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> i would argue, by the way, that "onion" is a kind of technology, onion
> routing, of which Tor is the first and best-known but not the last. so,
> i'll prefer .tor.external over .onion.external.
>
> [snip]
>
> compared to alt, yes. note that .external
hellekin wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 07:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:39:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
> >> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC
> >> that describes as much as
i think that deep discussion over whether .external is the right exit
gateway from dns naming is premature, and that we should first decide
whether a single exit gateway is preferred, and whether IANA should
craft a registry of external-to-the-dns uses of the internet name space.
i am in favour of
On 07/17/2015 12:17 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
>>> question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the explanation. Please see below.
On 7/17/15 4:38 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
>> question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
>>>
On 07/17/2015 11:32 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> No. .LOCAL was not already in the root zone. .FOO is.
>
*** Therefore the .FOO label is not available for Special-Use anymore,
end of story. A Special-Use name cannot be an already registered name in
the root zone.
If you referring to e.g., .corp t
16:31
To: Hugo Maxwell Connery
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion
Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
Hugo,
On Jul 17, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote:
> The goal here from the non-DNS people seems to be to have DNS type labels
> (thus URI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/17/2015 11:20 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
> question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
>>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an
>>arbit
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
> question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
>>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
>>number of subdomain components. T
Stephane,
On Jul 17, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Well, even worse, what happens if decides
>> to create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean
>> that we should automatically block it?
>
> No need to speculate about "what happens". It already happened, the
>
Hugo,
On Jul 17, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote:
> The goal here from the non-DNS people seems to be to have DNS type labels
> (thus URI's)
> which are known to the recursive and authoritative resolvers to be outside of
> DNS.
That appears to be the goal of some folks, however th
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:35:47AM +0200,
David Conrad wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
> It assumes folks who are developing these non-DNS protocols
> know/care about what the IETF thinks.
It is reasonable to assume that many of them do not even know that the
IETF exists. We should th
I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states:
>Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
>number of subdomain components. This information is not meaningful
>to the Tor protocol
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 02:22:58PM -0700,
Francisco Obispo wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
> Well, even worse, what happens if decides
> to create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean
> that we should automatically block it?
No need to speculate about "what happens"
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:35:12PM -0700,
Francisco Obispo wrote
a message of 207 lines which said:
> We are trying to mitigate against unknowns and perhaps the best
> solution is to have the TOR folks apply for .ONION on the next round
> of TLD application and get a fully qualified delegation
-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of David Conrad
[d...@virtualized.org]
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 13:30
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion
Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
Paul,
On Jul 17, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> yes, but not with .AL
On 7/16/15 9:04 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2015, at 5:37, David Conrad wrote:
>>
>>> I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put ONION
>>> in the special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the siz
On 7/15/15 10:16 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> I'm agreeing with Ted in that this application is insufficient.
>
> Whoa there, cowboy! I didn't say it was insufficient. I proposed
> changes to the text that I think would result in it better expressing
> what I think was intended.
I can see some exp
+1 on support
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Tom Ritter wrote:
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/17/2015 07:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:39:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
>> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC
>> that de
Paul,
On Jul 17, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> yes, but not with .ALT, which is a politically desirable gTLD name, and
> which allows the connotation of "alternate DNS". i suggested .EXTERNAL
> because nobody will ever want it as a gTLD and because its connotation
> is unambiguously "not
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:39:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC that
> describes as much as is possible to describe about that use.
Why is an IANA-maintained registry a good
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:51:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> yes, but not with .ALT, which is a politically desirable gTLD name, and
> which allows the connotation of "alternate DNS". i suggested .EXTERNAL
> because nobody will ever want it as a gTLD and because its connotation
> is unambiguous
On 7/16/15 8:20 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 02:45 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
>> It doesn’t feel right to me rewarding bad behavior.
> I don't think it's fair to characterize this as "bad behavior." It is
> completely unsurprising behaviour, as I explained in some detail in a
> previous
David Conrad wrote:
> Paul,
>
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
>> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC that
>> describes as much as is possible to describe about that use.
>
> You mean like
>From my high tech gadget
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 09:04, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
>> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC that
>> describes as muc
Paul,
On Jul 17, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an
> IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC that
> describes as much as is possible to describe about that use.
You mean like http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft
David Conrad wrote:
>>> Well, even worse, what happens if decides to
>>> create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean that we
>>> should automatically block it?
>> No. We can add it to the special-use domain name registry if the IETF has
>> consensus to do so, but there's n
Ted,
> To expand on this ever so slightly, the reason why things like this happen is
> because the process for approving special-use allocations is perceived as too
> heavyweight, so people don't bother to do it in anticipation of an experiment.
To be honest, I doubt this. It assumes folks who
>> Well, even worse, what happens if decides to
>> create a new dns-like protocol that uses .foo, does that mean that we should
>> automatically block it?
>
> No. We can add it to the special-use domain name registry if the IETF has
> consensus to do so, but there's nothing automatic about i
On 7/16/15, 9:57, "DNSOP on behalf of Tom Ritter" wrote:
>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
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2015, at 5:37, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put ONION
>> in the special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the size of the
>> installed base of TOR implementation
On 07/15/2015 02:45 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
It doesn’t feel right to me rewarding bad behavior.
I don't think it's fair to characterize this as "bad behavior." It is
completely unsurprising behaviour, as I explained in some detail in a
previous message:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/w
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
: [DNSOP] Last Call: (The .onion
Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
[snip]
I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put ONION in the
special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the size of the installed
base of TOR implementations, and the implications of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/15/2015 03:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I'm intrigued how you derived an insult from my statement
> that it was squatting.
>
I guess that's the proximity of "blunt" and "squatting" that gave me
this impression.
>
> You're wrong.
>
I sta
On 15 Jul 2015, at 5:37, David Conrad wrote:
I try to be pragmatic. Given I do not believe that refusing to put
ONION in the special names registry will stop the use of .ONION, the
size of the installed base of TOR implementations, and the
implications of the use of that string in certificates
Ok, good!.
In this case all we need is something that does not encourage the
creation of these names by not following published, transparent
guidelines.
It doesn’t feel right to me rewarding bad behavior.
Thanks again.
On 07/15/2015 02:22 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
Perhaps we need a reg
On 07/15/2015 02:22 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
Perhaps we need a registry to manage this list… IANA perhaps? with a
process on how to manage it that runs in coordination between IETF and
ICANN.
We already have a registry, called the special-use domain names registry:
http://www.iana.org/assi
On 07/15/2015 01:11 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
Well do they want a TLD but they don’t have the money? or don’t
want a TLD? perhaps the problem is in how the TLD program treats
them, in which case the answer should be on the ICANN side.
As I said in the previous message, they do not want a TLD
On 07/15/2015 01:11 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
Well do they want a TLD but they don’t have the money? or don’t want a
TLD? perhaps the problem is in how the TLD program treats them, in
which case the answer should be on the ICANN side.
As I said in the previous message, they do not want a TLD
This was proposed in the working group. It obviously doesn't work,
first because TOR can't come up with that kind of money, but second
because TOR doesn't want a TLD (hellekin's erroneous statements
notwithstanding). What they want is a special-use name. A domain
name does not accomplis
On 07/15/2015 12:35 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
We are trying to mitigate against unknowns and perhaps the best
solution is to have the TOR folks apply for .ONION on the next round
of TLD application and get a fully qualified delegation.
This was proposed in the working group. It obviously do
On 07/15/2015 11:46 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to
carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some other
system that used carrot as it's base identifier? On the heels of onion's
admission to the Special Use Domai
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
