IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: domain names that aren't DNS names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 423661A00B0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 H1fjwrhiHpRW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 879E11A00B5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B719DA0085; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.218] (71.233.41.235) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:09:27 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B6EBCC8F-E4EF-4378-932F-685AE9C9E9C4"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Subject: Re: domain names that aren't DNS names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150721013318.54792.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:09:26 -0400
Message-ID: <774DC1F1-E682-4E8F-911F-80D34A6C7B85@nominum.com>
References: <20150721013318.54792.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WmGooVaoPkYL1sOQRy7GXDwfLVE>
Cc: 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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:30 -0000

On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:33 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> I think we agree that changing the syntax of every application that
> uses domain names won't work.  So that means we pick some set of names
> currently unused in the DNS and carve it out to mean that a name gets
> handled specially.
> 
> We already have a draft for that.  See draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-06.

What Warren’s draft does is orthogonal to what RFC 6761 does.   Were Warren’s draft to achieve consensus, that would provide an escape for some applications that might otherwise tend to go through the RFC 6761 process, but it would not address the onion use case, nor several other use cases, nor does it solve the general problem you and I are presently discussing.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email