Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org> Fri, 01 April 2016 19:34 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 9E29012D5C8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:34:23 -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 kq-2pj6DHXL3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:34:22 -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 02B6112D0EF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail01.sigterm.no (Postfix, from userid 1006) id 4E0602E1930; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:34:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.postman.i2p (i2p-outproxy01.privacysolutions.no [193.150.121.66]) by mail01.sigterm.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974B22E1928 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 21:34:17 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 on milter.postman.i2p
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20160328185353.685C5AE51A@smtp.postman.i2p>
X-Mailer: smtp.postman.i2p - Official I2P Mailer
From: str4d <str4d@i2pmail.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160328185353.685C5AE51A@smtp.postman.i2p>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VhkVx9ATDOKtCNhlmiOEgeSwmus4SdVa7"
Message-Id: <20160401104034.2A6E4AE52E@smtp.postman.i2p>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:40:34 +0000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Zzi8RGfF7uEMc9lc-Yz-5-kVPpg>
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: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:34:23 -0000

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