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

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 7/15/15, 14:12, "Ted Lemon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 07/15/2015 11:04 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>Keep in mind - I'm saying the document, the internet-draft, doesn't
>> contain all that it could or should to be a convincing use case.
>>Perhaps
>> it ticked off all the check boxes of RFC 6761, but I think it lacks what
>> it needs to be convincing as well as stand the test of time.

>Argh.   I won't belabor the point, but the criteria established in 6761
>are criteria for the IETF to evaluate, not criteria that need to be
>documented in the specification.   The specification says what to do,
>and the working group considered that sufficient.   I do too.   Can you
>explain why it is beneficial for the document to try to make some
>statement about how widespread use of TOR is?   It's pretty easy for the
>working group to look at the situation and say "looks like enough."
>It's a lot harder to quantify it in a way that makes sense to put in an
>RFC, and I don't think it would be appropriate to do so.   I guess we
>could say "it is the consensus of the DNSOP working group that use of
>.onion is sufficiently widespread to justify publishing this document,"
>but I think we are already saying that by requesting its publication.

(The annoying what if... question:)

What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to
carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some other
system that used carrot as it's base identifier?  On the heels of onion's
admission to the Special Use Domain Names registry, could I expect to have
carrot admitted too?

I hope the answer is no, because the WG would likely not reach a consensus
on the document.  So, what I'm am asking is for the document to record why
onion is to be accorded this treatment.  WG consensus?  Document it!

(Aside from me thinking the draft's contents about name servers and
operators, criteria 4,5,6, is not a good approach.  E.g., my ISP's
recursive server does look for NS records where 6761 says it shouldn't,
but what they do works.)