Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

If they nest, then yes. if the xxxxx. under onion is hash denoted only for
other reasons, but otherwise is a truly encompassing domain, then yes. If
it has a SOA. and NS, and there is a clear zonecut, its not just a domain,
its a DNS domain. But we know that isn't how its going to work: this is a
domain name system outside of the DNS. the concept of a zone cut, of a
Serial, a TTL, NS of the zone, none of those properties of the system are
inherent givens. I beleive they might even be not-givens: they don't exist,
because the functional mapping behaviour lies in another model.

But if there is magic which means m.facebookcorewww. under 76543.onion is
deterministically known to be the same as m.facebookcorewww. under
123456.onion, without query into the zone to get state, then I am less sure
this should be considered a domain. Its not obeying strict nesting rules.
There is no implication of scoping.

-G

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Bob Harold <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Alec Muffett <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 14:16, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> XXXXXXXX.onion is *not* a domain name inside the .onion part: as I
>> understand it, the value is a hash, or other function which has no nesting
>> properties expressed syntactically.
>>
>>
>> Hi, my name's Alec, I work for Facebook and lead the engineering team for
>> Facebook over Tor.
>>
>> You are certainly correct that the label immediately left of ".onion" is
>> a hash, and functions not unlike a layer-3 address; however, there may be
>> other labels leftwards of the hash, under (to some extent) other
>> administrative control.
>>
>> The canonical example of this would be: www.facebookcorewwwi.onion versus
>> m.facebookcorewwwwi.onion
>>
> ...
>
>>     - alec
>>
>>
> I would argue that "facebookcorewww" is a domain within the "onion"
> domain, and that the "www" and "m" here are within the "facebookcorewww"
> domain.
>
> I also think that the fact that the 'name' of the domain happens to be a
> hash is significant, it is merely the 'name' of the domain, and how the
> name is chosen is not what defines a domain.
>
> We might even say that the actual domain could be considered to be the
> private information that the hash is created from, or the service, or
> address (however Tor finds the resource).
>
>
>
>