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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Alec Muffett <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi again, Ted!
>
> > ​Because the registry assumed that the IETF had change control for
> special use names that involved non-DNS​ resolutions.   Clearly it does not
> for .onion, so we are working out what to do in real time, rather than
> simply following a well trodden path.
> [...]
>
> > ​Good faith don't grow Christmas trees, in the words of my grandfather.
> My frank assessment is that if the Tor community can commit in good faith
> to follow the DNS constraints for its identifiers (don't step on IDN rules,
> follow the length guidelines, etc.), the ​IETF should register .onion and
> then immediately close the registry for repairs and refactoring.
> >
> > But that's just my own opinion,
>
>
> Your grandfather spoke wise words.  Nick Mathewson is the engineer who
> leads Tor development on Onion services.  He writes thusly on this matter:
>
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-August/009275.html
>
> How will that fly with you?
>

​If you're willing to put a statement like it in the draft, that works for
me; it would need to include a slightly broader commitment (not to step on
other syntax bits, like the IDNA prefix etc), but I think the broader
statement would go to exactly the same goal.

I'm sorry to read in the above link that you feel beaten up by this; I've
tried to be quite careful in noting that I think the fault here is in the
registry itself, not this registration.  There were some unanticipated
consequences to this that this registration brings to light; we now ​need
to deal with those.   That's all that's going on.

regards,

Ted