IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 17 July 2015 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15F51B33D6; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.367
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 aUp_L1d1tBCq; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8E541B33D1; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8939.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8939.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.137.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t6HDTF6J091585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:29:18 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20150714192438.1138.96059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D1CBC489.D039%edward.lewis@icann.org> <55A69556.9020207@nominum.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <55A88484.6010502@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:28:52 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55A69556.9020207@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V9nsfP4etSAe4soWU79iw14Ahod96eJhI"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5lVgbZgJTYdAp_MfFq1RA1OxCzQ>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:29:47 -0000

On 7/15/15 10:16 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> I'm agreeing with Ted in that this application is insufficient.
> 
> Whoa there, cowboy!   I didn't say it was insufficient.   I proposed
> changes to the text that I think would result in it better expressing
> what I think was intended.

I can see some explanatory text getting added, I think this coming week
will likely be useful for feedback.

> And also, please don't call it an application.   It is an internet
> draft, which has passed working group last call, and is in IETF last
> call.   An application would be something that would be handled by the
> IESG, through the instrumentality of the IANA.

yup, wg document, proposed standard, 4 week ietf LC and all that.

dnsop would absolutely not be undertaking any work on the tor protocol.
It was clearly the appropriate place to handle  the problem posed by
this draft however.

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email