Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

[hellekin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/12/2015 09:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> Is your complaint that appelbaum-dnsop-onion reads to you as though
> such special applications are the only way to do this?  If so, then
> you're right that it needs adjustment.
> 
*** Yes, my concern is that we can get consensus on how to interpret
what an "application" means, and what a "name resolution APIs and
libraries" mean in a consistent manner in the context of RFC6761, as it
can lead to wide differences in the resulting rules for the readers.

==
hk

P.S.: your previous response was instrumental in my understanding of the
difference of views on MUST and SHOULD, and on the point developed in
this message, and I thank you for that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=qKXA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----