IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76DA1A1A90 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 QG21t4EE4IzI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6B51AC44C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BEC2106B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNMHaFHCYMg6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:15:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-50-169-68-91.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [50.169.68.91]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52B831060F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 12:15:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:15:58 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150512121557.GA75349@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <55511C03.8050202@gnu.org> <20150512002635.GB74841@mx2.yitter.info> <E9D753C1-A091-4E15-BB91-8F5B123CA1C3@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E9D753C1-A091-4E15-BB91-8F5B123CA1C3@fb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/p4ID-IDceBoA8BdFJRVazRQKvv0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16:05 -0000

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:12:54AM +0000, Alec Muffett wrote:
> I believe that this demonstrates the condition you were looking for?

Yes, and it's exactly the model I had in mind, and it also
demonstrates that users do in fact need to use different software in
order to access onion.  Moreover, it demonstrates that onion queries
will leak to the public DNS if such special software is not in place.
I think this shows that appelbaum-dnsop-onion is in fact correct.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email