Re: [DNSOP] Accounting for Special Use Names in Application Protocols

My two cents:
I think it might be good to scope the 6761 issue, with something like the
following:

> The http (and similar) URIs must rely on some name resolution mechanism(s)
> to interpret the "authority" field and ultimately convert it into a
> transport identifier (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, carrier pigeon).

* If/when* DNS is consulted for resolution of the authority field, directly
> or indirectly, strict adherence to the spirit and text of RFC 6761 is
> required.

 I.e. it is necessary to recognize all special use names, and necessary to
> not resolve such names via DNS.

Hope this helps at least a little.

Brian

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 2:43 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Hi DNSOP,
>
> In the HTTPWG, we have an open issue about how to account for .onion in
> HTTP URL processing:
>   https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/10
>
> Our discussion led us to believe we'd do better to have a general
> statement about special-use names when dereferencing HTTP URLs.
>
> It's possible such text might end up here:
>
> https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#http.uri
> .... along with the following section on HTTPS, and of course in Security
> Considerations.
>
> Do folks have thoughts about what it should say, and would any one be
> willing to help?
>
> Cheers,
>
> P.S. I haven't CC'd the HTTP WG to avoid issues with cross-posting; I'll
> point the WG at discussion here.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>