IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Wed, 18 March 2015 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 225B51A8A4E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 zu_1Afq5ksib for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 388C21A8A4A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igcqo1 with SMTP id qo1so32295806igc.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=DSbnKeu0HORooy7+eCOxU41YVCzyK628AWTeOkQxWPg=; b=gmtyVAL1kUrTL/uCTc7BA8wRR2zWCu2rRsC4XSkiq9MuNLDiUZJDrFygkaca3IYuCK N24aRnU27vwCvLhuvd4+L/qL/XizUgL0ZHFQlFy6HE0os6QGWmLAK0+n8uNdN/IbuWJv vtMM/oePBQJotcFnRjCP37opD+GrSx8mMBxPw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=DSbnKeu0HORooy7+eCOxU41YVCzyK628AWTeOkQxWPg=; b=MniV9BfvauYbErGiqB6YTaBCpmum5UH+pbHZ3Okok0hoRmMULe1g4kziZW101HFe/e rdEbdHYffTianYQHuOFXfBlC8L8KQHlvhBSqUR63ocelSMUn0Cy6/U9jwAb7oGiDvTJ5 R1mdWQSgkce00w/O8S+mjUTiK5yhrOdRvCJ8I57U0gUhFEM3c12SN+cP7LjDxEjQnFfW fZ4aJAk3zWpnqNyKl84njW63EpOBY4lNNWTDhKC0hVE4fTshqLXixv+TCxLptH7Xa9F4 dm9/WTSKA1f7/ycX4Kc1127Y1Ie/J8rmYe0WOqthRfVfAger0HINQ9U+ffyocIrO8OfR 3h5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmyea6guL84h7JhTg2VIFvZjM4/gv9miGi6N8nBzsfGF8+lz1mSvtuyVScTMGGbz87kT75y
X-Received: by 10.50.137.99 with SMTP id qh3mr3143878igb.7.1426648857730; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.166.84 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6CF06CE1-FB50-4BD8-AF54-4CCAAEA93B0B@virtualized.org>
References: <CAFggDF0XX3v7yGsaCwFnE7cjK0yz4-frxFgoBJfnztO8k-LFBg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1503162052420.20709@bofh.nohats.ca> <D12DE3BF.B714%alecm@fb.com> <515E25C7-B711-4C41-8C8D-2B5A57DF9B1E@difference.com.au> <6CF06CE1-FB50-4BD8-AF54-4CCAAEA93B0B@virtualized.org>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:20:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+cU71mBuzaVVWFKnYzbnt+UBwyrqXSG9si3OZsHeL1uaFvuwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/F_3Zg4w6r4yVEqnttYODkt_Kitc>
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 03:21:00 -0000

On 17 March 2015 at 10:49, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>> On 17 March 2015 at 10:36, David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> I'm generally in favour of this proposal.
>
> +1

I also support this draft.

CA issuance for .onion post-October is dependent on this draft, and
external reliance on an RFC (or lack of RFC) by some date is not
particularly uncommon. It's not a reason to rush a draft through of
course, but it is why we are hoping people can consider the technical
merits of the draft and raise substantive (and editorial) concerns.

To the discussion of aborting lookup, returning NXDOMAIN locally, etc
- everyone understands that this is not guaranteed to occur - but we
can hope it will, and can point people to this document as
encouragement. And even if no software conforms to these guidelines,
having .onion in the special use registry is still appropriate and
useful.

-tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email