Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 17 March 2015 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 695D71A905B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 KwPkINNubwjl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3B6B1A904A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3l5dX55GNmz1HF; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:20:53 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: mx.nohats.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca header.i=@nohats.ca header.b=oXA+Ek7F
X-OPENPGPKEY: Message passed unmodified
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7TzGUI5vPlrl; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:20:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:20:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5449580416; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1426558852; bh=/Y8KavcdaXBYJ+j5EWo96ZFIePn71HEAQlCZ7v5DAuU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=oXA+Ek7F6hXyPpwEc30VCOmTAFIj/ckdN6wdHBwYeQwVmMobtY+cL05lniKTbQ0sW idEpaTlirBg5PHQrsB1xF67WW/Mo8ozj1KbVt/2aRJfsf6y6sVTeTwda2crCruYkmA Jg+6fsC2LbZoPmDGwvhOtUIcrUrr+A33HLywIMm8=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id t2H2KpHD001043; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:20:52 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:20:51 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <55078791.50300@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503162219310.20709@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAFggDF0XX3v7yGsaCwFnE7cjK0yz4-frxFgoBJfnztO8k-LFBg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503162052420.20709@bofh.nohats.ca> <55078791.50300@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9ccv6Kiyc4dqi1Z1SVVOy24AnoY>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:20:58 -0000

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, hellekin wrote:

>> Is this meant to replace or augment
>> draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names ?
>>
> *** This draft only covers .onion, one of the two pTLDs related to the
> Tor Project in the P2PNames draft, so the obvious answer is that it
> won't replace it.  Now the P2PNames draft certainly can benefit from
> this discussion and will be amended accordingly.

It seems odd that two documents would be requesting an IANA action for
".onion" ?

> I understand the scope of this draft is to facilitate the adoption of
> .onion in the context of resolving the actual need of proper issuance of
> SSL certificates for .onion domains.

Than perhaps I completely misunderstood things? How does this relate to
DNS or DNSOP if it is about issuing SSL certificates only?

Paul