Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Have some class?

[manning <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for that.  The original claim was that these name spaces were global in scope, but not part of the Internet.
So I took that as face value.  Your example, while perhaps a valid interpretation, is not what was asked for.
If it is, then namespace/class specific applications/extentions need to be developed/deployed, OR folks need
to suck it up and just use the Internet portion of the DNS (and its associated rules, e.g. new TLDs are defined 
by ICANN)

/bill


On 3July2015Friday, at 7:01, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:43 AM, manning <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Actually, there IS an escape method already defined.  We just don’t use it much these days.
>> It’s called  “class”
>> 
>> There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class.  they could/should be in their
>> own class, like the old CHAOS protocols.   So  a class  “ONION” or “P2P” would work out very nicely.
> 
> Yup, but the problem is that people want to be able to enter the
> alternate namespace names into existing applications (like browsers,
> ssh, etc), just like a "normal" DNS name. They want to be able to
> email links around (like https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/ ) and have
> others click on them, etc.
> 
> There is no way that I know of to tell e.g Safari to look this up in a
> different class... and, even if there were, they would *still* leak,
> because people are lazy...
> 
> W
> 
>> 
>> After all it’s the Domain Name System.  (can comprehend names in multiple domains, not just the Internet)
>> 
>> manning
>> [e-mail]
>> PO Box 12317
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>> 310.322.8102
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2July2015Thursday, at 20:56, manning <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2July2015Thursday, at 18:21, Robert Edmonds <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> manning wrote:
>>>>>    There in lies the problem.  These systems have no way to disambiguate a local v. global scope.
>>>>>       It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets
>>>>>       and no way to attempt DNS resolution.   Or they need to ensure that DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology”
>>>>>       which is not global in scope.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't understand this point.  Since Onion hidden service names are
>>>> based on hashes derived from public keys surely they're globally scoped
>>>> (barring hash collisions)?
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Robert Edmonds
>>> 
>>> If they _are_ globally scoped,  what part of the local system decides which namespace to use, the ONION, the LOCAL, the P2P, the BIT, the BBSS, the DECnetV, the IXP, or the DNS…
>>> where is search order determined?  Does first match in any namespace win?  What is the tiebreaker when there are label collisions between namespaces?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> /bill
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>   ---maf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop