Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt

"John Levine" <> Sat, 05 December 2015 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667BB1B3701 for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:45:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.037
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id idCvgg5YemXE for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 403261B36FF for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 72869 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2015 03:45:16 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 5 Dec 2015 03:45:16 -0000
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 03:44:55 -0000
Message-ID: <20151205034455.41869.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 03:45:19 -0000

It occurs to me that there's a difference between local and localhost
on the one hand and onion on the other.  With local and localhost, you
still something like an A or AAAA record with an an IP address that
you can use in the normal way to open a connection.

With onion you get a rather different thing that looks like an open
TCP connection, a couple of levels up the protocol stack.  So if the
theory is that these special names are doing a protocol switch, it's
not one switch, it's potentially a switch per name.  I suppose you
could say there's yet another switch for test, example, and invalid
that returns failure at whatever level of the stack you try.

I'm not sure if that makes the discussion notably more complicated
but it certainly doesn't make it any simpler.