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

George Michaelson <> Thu, 10 December 2015 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421821ACE1E for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 19:08:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nv_a0dzzj-tZ for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 19:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 304771ACE1F for <>; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 19:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgea14 with SMTP id a14so117466931qge.0 for <>; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 19:08:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XPaNeoC5hM6eLEcqlXwAmLNjR3oJ08P6U7KrpCp9Qfc=; b=qAjtSLrpir4j5kEur/cY2Ol3de4ezL+E8R8vJOwoFUqOSX77tFaVIAabp82N9RVVs+ 0tXfkvCavizZ5rR3t+Ouo/ELj1pdczuCDOOsXUxDkKpbn9wBCwcZ7+pmsVIAn+ywApoW EU3peId1TbstXKAnCWOshh00lFlmpPTooNV5NfSvJl/Rmf84MPvGQrAZqHcQ3C7iNpte jxUx1PU6Aa490RdT/nWRP143jeOP4vgi6fTLMIyqVmsBwCqgwT8sgYMpqVqtSK23KWF2 WUPr5XSEOlx9Qm6fc++Q/yqV4WZuNAU0gb0HsQ6+h4TnzlupSb6ERqGtM0hFS5AJn0C9 kLvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XPaNeoC5hM6eLEcqlXwAmLNjR3oJ08P6U7KrpCp9Qfc=; b=jwKwMtqGnAETP/FhGn1COMdjuhp0KquGK81M4qDrevGyFTXQbOZrMMnRS6RSjT3/Lq YsARZRybk9YWD+nMtHVWAhtHLMcZkxxHFa+sjn8DlVwxpW6CWmBpkJZ9K+67sB/Wa1Lh oYSC0bB442XuSG6/7VFl2m6MdxGOR4BZV++hYYmueiXcDPbgiCbS3VpQV/uVZPcIDcrI IU5CYoMl20j6MCHpSxpGxwSo0uHNshWjD1D7KP62xI93r0qRMQ6x+k8kMCgTkxphRv+/ NBPKPiNp4D/gdJ0XYrKD+ZkiODssmppnDPZtKmPU6Uwn3VtUGxYr0SthSICFZuEVvwVF E31w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6H92OfUu9JxtGaRwQvZUr8fo+x1/FhbZJeRgEPpyncC/jc6vcz60DMuzwCqlzn0JDmsdDcjXS5OP5D3qTDPLaBygZ/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 106mr12829070qge.34.1449716931180; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 19:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 19:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1512092200280.44949@ary.local>
References: <20151205034455.41869.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1512092200280.44949@ary.local>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:08:51 +1000
Message-ID: <>
From: George Michaelson <>
To: John R Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c01536b554a6052682866f"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Alec Muffett <>, "" <>
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 03:08:58 -0000

The 7 Layer model is a useful tool to talk about things, its not a rei-fied
thing. That said, apparent layer violations invite critique because they
inherently carry architectural consequence.

I think the overloading of a (semantic space) name to have special
properties to take it out of the system is a case in point. Its an
application through session layer property: packets don't get sent using
.onion labels in source/destination fields. And the imposition on all the
other layers to handle .onion specially, feels (to me) a mortal wound.
This, compared to the cost of taking syntactic limits in the URI, and
applying a lever there to wedge :tor: into the URI form, denoting what you
want to happen.

SOCKS is pretty much a shim. Its a clean layer impact. Its (to me) like
taking fopen() and replacing it by bzip2fopen() to get silent bz2
capability in existing file I/O

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:02 PM, John R Levine <> wrote:

> With onion you get a rather different thing that looks like an open
>>> TCP connection, a couple of levels up the protocol stack.
> Strictly an Onion address yields you a _real_ TCP connection to your SOCKS
>> server, ...
> It's certainly a virtual circuit, but it's not a TCP connection because
> the endpoints aren't IP addresses.
> The Onion addresses aren't making a "protocol switch", ...
> Really, they are.  You can't do a DNS lookup on the address, there is no A
> or AAAA record with an IP address to which you can open a TCP connection.
> Regards,
> John Levine,, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list