IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Wed, 01 July 2015 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4461B1B2A50 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.431
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xrCz3dotTpyS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D97A11B2A46 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:54:37 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:54:37 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request
Thread-Index: AQHQs/6i6EfEJZjc7ki3Wf/0xfSz0J3G1M0AgABHW4CAAEcxgIAAAPYA///EvYA=
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:54:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D1B9AD4C.C9EA%edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <D1B951E7.C996%edward.lewis@icann.org> <B26365D7-11B3-441D-BED3-5FEFB671B0FA@gmail.com> <D1B966DB.C9AC%edward.lewis@icann.org> <DF014EDF-819B-47BB-817D-AB13D57A57E9@gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJQ+Ydu4m-dd8cMOvVtYkKdEYMO_bx1Z5GBX3jLVgq=Jg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQYxFq7C0mWbs92RzoELU-Di9juKc5Dg16SP_ze=BzXxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQYxFq7C0mWbs92RzoELU-Di9juKc5Dg16SP_ze=BzXxw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3518607275_22206249"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1jjjciux0XBpSA5ILysZYH20jkk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:54:41 -0000

On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

>We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making.  Let's
>engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting.  For my
>money, alt-TLD looks about right.

How does that help this:

>>>>>>On 7/1/15, 1:47, str4d@i2pmail.org wrote:
>>>>>>> .onion and .i2p (and to my knowledge, the other proposed P2P-Names
>>>>>>> TLDs too) have to conform to DNS rules in order to be usable in
>>>>>>>legacy
>>>>>>> applications that expect domain names.

Having a alt-TLD is fine.  But what if names are proposed, experimented
and deployed outside the sphere of influence of the IETF and/or working
group?  Writing this as someone who is unfamiliar with "other proposed
P2P-Names" efforts and whether they want to engage with "standards bodies"
before deploying.  I've gotten the impression that members of those
efforts dislike standards processes - I may be wrong but that's the
impression I've gotten from the discussion on this list.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email