IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request

Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> Fri, 03 July 2015 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <edmonds@mycre.ws>
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 60F601AD1FE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 YjrVvqCg74W1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chase.mycre.ws (chase.mycre.ws [70.89.251.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20DAA1AD23D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by chase.mycre.ws (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 808FA1C406A2; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 21:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:21:46 -0400
From: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
To: manning <bmanning@karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <20150703012146.GA29948@mycre.ws>
References: <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C27498@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <D1BAA21E.CA2E%edward.lewis@icann.org> <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C2759F@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C275B2@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <E225C721-7279-4053-97A2-2D63A155DA14@karoshi.com> <6CB05D82CE245B4083BBF3B97E2ED470C27602@ait-pex01mbx01.win.dtu.dk> <88E49F4B-64BD-4832-BD02-D1A882874E92@karoshi.com> <20150702234423.GB23022@mycre.ws> <EBDBDD70-046F-4E31-BDAC-A619EECD4F13@karoshi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <EBDBDD70-046F-4E31-BDAC-A619EECD4F13@karoshi.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/X56yZZxfYEY9DFxDFRBbVK3jDPA>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] back to: 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: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 01:21:49 -0000

manning wrote:
> 	There in lies the problem.  These systems have no way to disambiguate a local v. global scope.
>          It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets
>          and no way to attempt DNS resolution.   Or they need to ensure that DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology”
>          which is not global in scope.

I don't understand this point.  Since Onion hidden service names are
based on hashes derived from public keys surely they're globally scoped
(barring hash collisions)?

-- 
Robert Edmonds

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email