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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On 07/14/2015 01:28 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> ​Given that the point of IETF Last Call is to determine if there is 
> IETF consensus on the working group's analysis and proposal, I find 
> "inappropriate" an odd choice of words here.  The IETF as a whole may 
> have a different sense of the trade-offs here.​
It's certainly appropriate for people who aren't DNSOP participants to 
weigh in here, and for DNSOP participants to raise new issues that the 
working group missed.   But it seems bogus to me for DNSOP participants 
to raise the same issue here that they raised in DNSOP and that didn't 
get consensus.   I  believe you are a DNSOP participant, but perhaps I 
am mistaken.   I think you and at least one other person read my comment 
as saying that once the working group has consensus, that's the end of 
it, but that wasn't my point.   My point is simply that it would be 
useless and harmful to the IETF for DNSOP participants to waste the 
collective attention of the IETF re-arguing points that already got 
consensus in DNSOP. This is a perennial problem in the IETF.   Of 
course, now we will have a long argument about the appropriateness of my 
interjection here instead, but I'm not convinced that that's worse.

> ​I have a great deal of respect for the folks in DNSOP, and a similar 
> amount for those who created and TOR.  But I believe that this 
> approach to segmenting the namespace for protocol resolution does not 
> scale well.  I would far prefer a notation that onion addresses can 
> appear in the authority section of URIs without them being DNS names, 
> something that RFC 3986 allows with the registered name syntax.
I don't see how that helps: if they can appear in URIs, then we still 
need to mark that special-use TLD as in use.