IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> Tue, 12 May 2015 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hellekin@gnu.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 C345A1A92AB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 urAWazRr6RET for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 352901A9248 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ol168-138.fibertel.com.ar ([24.232.138.168]:56799 helo=raiz.hellekin.gnu) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hellekin@gnu.org>) id 1Ys8xo-0003Tf-Tc for dnsop@ietf.org; Tue, 12 May 2015 08:07:09 -0400
Message-ID: <5551ECD4.80307@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:06:44 -0300
From: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
Organization: https://gnu.org/consensus
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <55511C03.8050202@gnu.org> <20150512002635.GB74841@mx2.yitter.info> <E9D753C1-A091-4E15-BB91-8F5B123CA1C3@fb.com> <5551A139.1070408@gnu.org> <6571F7A4-9B36-4742-9DE0-2E54B3E63342@fb.com>
In-Reply-To: <6571F7A4-9B36-4742-9DE0-2E54B3E63342@fb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JWUnaqDoyJ4Wx_pCYtfBo3LvSsw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion
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, 12 May 2015 12:07:19 -0000

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

On 05/12/2015 04:18 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>> On May 12, 2015, at 7:44 AM, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> *** So in my understanding of the scope boundaries of RFC6761 IANA
>> considerations, which seems to be the main difference between our 
>> drafts and our respective positions, the former is "an application",
>> while the latter bundles "an application" and "a name resolution API
>> or library".
> 
> Being a SOCKS-based service, of course, any SOCKS-enabled client can
> talk to Onion-space; including SSH, for instance.
> 
*** I'm sorry Alec, but I don't understand the meaning of your response.

On the one hand you seem to agree ("of course"), but on the other hand
you seem to talk about something different.

Let's see.  "Naked firefox" is one case.  The TBB is another.  SSH is
yet another.  All three match the "application" case.  But only the TBB
comes with a built-in Tor resolver (and matches the "name resolution API
or library" case.)  Do you agree with that interpretation?

==
hk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=gPmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email