Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org> Sat, 02 April 2016 07:45 UTC
Return-Path: <str4d@i2pmail.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF59D12D567 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 00:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.091
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 pc6X6natZTri for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 00:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail01.sigterm.no (mail01.sigterm.no [193.150.121.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73DA912D54E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 00:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail01.sigterm.no (Postfix, from userid 1006) id 331942E10A6; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 09:45:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.postman.i2p (i2p-outproxy01.privacysolutions.no [193.150.121.66]) by mail01.sigterm.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C9E2E0FFA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 09:45:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 on milter.postman.i2p
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
References: <20160328185353.685C5AE51A@smtp.postman.i2p> <20160401104034.2A6E4AE52E@smtp.postman.i2p> <20160401195345.B3DB3AE528@smtp.postman.i2p>
X-Mailer: smtp.postman.i2p - Official I2P Mailer
From: str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160401195345.B3DB3AE528@smtp.postman.i2p>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QV5PQVFPBkAcbEXUvB8WsNmStkqEfVmwp"
Message-Id: <20160401230345.D5225AE528@smtp.postman.i2p>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 23:03:45 +0000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YVWSEz8M-iw7h1-9vX8uFysNZts>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:45:31 -0000
On 02/04/16 08:53, George Michaelson wrote: > Whats your reaction going to be, to a closed 6761 because if you come > to the microphone with a "but we built to the userbase, we have > millions" and make bambi eyes, I feel a bit like saying "you were > warned" When and where? In this discussion? As has been stated long ago in this discussion, I2P has been using .i2p since 2005 (long before my time), for exactly the same reasons as Tor used .onion. Using the current discussion as an attempt to retroactively alter how the IETF has done outreach regarding TLDs in the past is disingenuous. > > ie, squatting a domain, is squatting a domain, no matter how much you > believe in your own process. If you populate code to the label, a > specific label, you're in moral hazard. As I have also stated long ago in this discussion, I did in fact look into an alternate avenue which would be a much better technical fit: defining an AF_I2P. I could find *no way* to achieve this without requiring patches to the kernels of every OS that we wanted to release on. So given the choice between "impossible or indefinitely-blocked solution" and "solution that works", is it surprising that the Tor and I2P developers went the way they did? > > You cannot predict what label (if any) you will get. You need to code > agile, to a label being in another space (eg .alt) which is also > unknown. it has to be in a .conf or other runtime option, not hard > coded. If that's the case, why can't everyone using .home or .mail or .corp also switch? Answer: legacy software. We have tens of thousands of I2P routers out there, in use right now. We do have some level of control over *some* of them via updates (but only if the users accept the update), but we have zero control over all the client software that has been written over the last decade that expects to see a .i2p address. At this point, switching .tld is not an option, which leaves us blocked in the same position as Tor was regarding non-self-signed SSL certificates. str4d > > forever. > > -G > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:40 AM, str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org> wrote: >> On 29/03/16 07:53, John Levine wrote: >>> Finally, no matter what we do, at some point someone will come by with >>> .GARLIC which is like .ONION but stronger and they will say (with some >>> justification) that it's used by a zillion people around the world. >>> "You should have used GARLIC.ALT." "Yeah, I guess so, but we didn't, >>> sorry." Then we'll have to deal with it one way or the other. I hope >>> that .alt will push that day off farther into the future but it's >>> unlikely to push it to infinity. >> >> Injecting a little levity: I2P does in fact use a variant of onion >> routing called garlic routing! But we are already in the 6761 process >> for .I2P, and have absolutely no desire to take garlic any further than >> a technical metaphor :) >> >> str4d >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> >
- [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Ralph Droms
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Ralph Droms
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Ralph Droms
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Ralph Droms
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Suzanne Woolf
- [DNSOP] The right alt string (was Re: draft-adpkj… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] The right alt string (was Re: draft-a… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] The right alt string (was Re: draft-a… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Ralph Droms
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Jim Reid
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Philip Homburg
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Alain Durand
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Philip Homburg
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Philip Homburg
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Ralph Droms
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… str4d
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… str4d
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-prob… Adrien de Croy