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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 17 July 2015 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 76BE31A8848; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 kljAWHo7y33d; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 583511A8833; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2581; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437146257; x=1438355857; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=0NiSSME3s40Rc4gPGTv4sZSSEommhwN3R94s7xID/8Q=; b=dfC9J3UI/0XwKxiZtyIz64SR8EP+5/5Ls/1nPOSGjYonXdsULzzx5Ik3 ooGG2gdFh6O9PlXBkcV0urQUvLlS4pXdTe9iec6WRtmU+pv+H+jENDldu QemD9ludEQDm1yWLlPRMADXiagrE3x5ZEihbmnsc0DUE+0eqvnUoOwPs+ c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CwBAAlG6lV/xbLJq1ag2dpgyO6M4V/AoICEAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEEIyYvARALDgoJFgQHAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0GAgEBiCq6OpYkAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGotMhDQBAVAHgmiBQwEEjDeIFYIzgVSDSIRQgUOEGYJuhVyKXSZjgVuBQDwxgQ2BPgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,497,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="569853329"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2015 15:17:35 +0000
Received: from [10.61.72.99] (ams3-vpn-dhcp2147.cisco.com [10.61.72.99]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6HFHYm0007433; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:17:35 GMT
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <20150714192438.1138.96059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55A90F34.4010901@cisco.com> <CAL02cgTJM1FxTHfaQb_x5=7MExOd3YumQbrAEE487a2+Ax0i=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55A91C90.1050201@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:17:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTJM1FxTHfaQb_x5=7MExOd3YumQbrAEE487a2+Ax0i=w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rXnqd11UUE6DMv8qfFJ0i517XkDtfihDo"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VzJgSG8W2awrIoc2lvNAjMzGkxk>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@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 15:17:39 -0000

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the explanation.  Please see below.

On 7/17/15 4:38 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a
>> question about one sentence in the draft.  Section 1 states:
>>>    Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary
>>>    number of subdomain components.  This information is not meaningful
>>>    to the Tor protocol, but can be used in application protocols like
>>>    HTTP [RFC7230].
>>>
>> I honestly don't understand what is being stated here, or why a claim is
>> made about HTTP at all in this document.  Are we talking about the
>> common practice of www.example.com == example.com?  And what
>> significance does that last phrase have to the document?
> I made a comment on this to the authors earlier, and they decided to
> leave it as-is :)
>
> The idea is that TOR routing will only use the first label after
> .onion, but if you're using the .onion name in an application, that
> application might use the whole name.  For example, if you put
> "http://mail.example.onion/", TOR will route on "example.onion", but
> the HTTP Host header might be "mail.example.onion".
>
> -

I just leave the IESG and WG with the comment that two of us "old
timers" are trying to divine the meaning of those two sentences, and
that can't be good for others with (even) less clue.  Personally I think
the easiest approach is to remove those two sentences, but if others
really disagree, then a bit more clarity seems in order.

Eliot