Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 02 July 2015 01:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 F3FD11B2B62 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5] 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 OZqClMf99Jj7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DF41B2B5D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E09110370 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 01:43:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id skhZ3JktQ13P for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 01:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-50-169-68-91.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [50.169.68.91]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA7D41036F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 01:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:42:58 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150702014258.GP39214@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <D1B951E7.C996%edward.lewis@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D1B951E7.C996%edward.lewis@icann.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Dlgb7iMJQ8bBv6BAnwCFU22-ZJo>
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: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:43:04 -0000
Hi Ed, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:26:43PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: > I'm sympathetic to the use the path of least resistance - e.g., use names > that syntactically are DNS names I note that the Subject: line of your note still contains a vestigial reference to the thread I started recently on this, and your message nevertheless returns to collapsing "domain names" and "DNS names". I don't know whether I've simply failed to explain the distinction I'm trying to make, or whether you reject the premise. Could you please be clear about which it is? To me, the _point_ of onion. is that it is not a DNS name. You're right that it has the same syntax -- because it is a domain name, but not (intended to be) a DNS name. The registration of the name in the special use registry would achieve that end. You might object that this distinction is extremely hard, because there's nothing about the label itself to signal this namespace shift, and unaware clients will therefore automatically just treat such names as DNS names, not special-use domain names. I happen to agree with that, but we cannot hold back this tide: it was let loose once local. became an in-band protocol switch, without any registration, in Apple's widely-deployed Bonjour service. We might wish that people hadn't abused the namespace to turn it into protocol switches as well as everything else, but the history of SRV through Bonjour shows that this technique is popular and unlikely to go away. Commanding the tide to stay back when you are neck deep in water is not likely to work. Therefore, I claim, we need to make some clear distinctions and understand what has actually happened, and then adjust to the new reality. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctio… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Richard Barnes
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Richard Barnes
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… str4d
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distin… hellekin