Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 15 July 2015 16:56 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 B6F9F1B31AB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 NaMegbBM09kU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6693C1B31A7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so5591712wig.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OVDCNn39wPQIZdBJeqZSSeM8OeNdhdX6OxjqlU80hNA=; b=Q7rHmc9FlRKI6yP7I/OAsEJ+Kg05DDg2316MwcxXQ7Tv8PwYNcqF1GfDNjDuDUK0or wVJYRh8HV+SPvnUsLWGuftm4fTsB1J6pjJk47UkNASEmcuRqef1rVImcl+9wjaSTL6Ab G3zP5D4ClYasixvJ9GCmtOs1dighH1LIcSKDsm/aR+Fl7tr7oxlWOzjR1uPj8YqircZL FhQCOmgrJVKKESkOCKkZHe7pPYs+ZCehvjf6vJmV24XbLC835a+aQZ4teLDx4kyfdpE8 ipM9AU5OQ4a0hy+inFmdH4RnovdGCKVN46OHlyssx4tPVt9hpJQZSubaJwSohOB53qp1 hR9A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.11.229 with SMTP id el5mr884732wid.40.1436979387201; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.17.68 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BBA233B3-789D-4AAD-82B3-41C995E11D8E@frobbit.se>
References: <20150714192438.1138.96059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKr6gn0KTpdsbG67aUvnvSt833C+1kH8tB1PEZoksq6R+9FPNw@mail.gmail.com> <91B3FDB8-C46E-4B97-ADA7-900794C0237D@frobbit.se> <154CECB0C21A02BC78224D78@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <BBA233B3-789D-4AAD-82B3-41C995E11D8E@frobbit.se>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:56:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBGAfKhFpiPV8L+cz2gXu8ccD8YmfgJ_PXHqDRaknjO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt> (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c8004ec7f0b051aecd5bc"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YkYXkV-ajcVAQzEDz8rYLm6kpXg>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <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: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:56:34 -0000
Howdy, On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote: > > There are many shades of gray ;-) > > This point seems to have consensus :-). > > Well, I hope that adding names to the special names registry will result > in the names be on the "forbidden" list of potential new round of TLDs > ICANN might launch. All up to the result of the PDP run by ICANN of course. > > From this point of view the special names registry is actually a registry of "labels forbidden to the DNS in a specific slot". But my view of the reasoning is that for test, invalid, and example "special processing" means "no processing, this isn't real". RFC 6762 wasn't "no processing" but instead "no processing in global DNS, process locally using mDNS instead." That confirmed that the IETF would be willing to register labels forbidden to the DNS in a specific slot because it was otherwise resolved, rather than simply unresolvable. And now we have the next such request, which once again relies on an installed based to claim necessity. >From an architectural perspective (but still wearing my hat as an individual), this method for partitioning the namespace has a very poor long-term characteristics. If we permitted it generally, we would be sanctioning a system in which there is a single root + some local knowledge required for name resolution. That local knowledge will be at some unknown state for the vast majority of devices and implementations for a long time (predict for me, if you like, the date the last query for .onion will hit the root, and I'll buy you a donut if it occurs within a year of your guess) and if the local knowledge required expands over time, essentially forever. That's bad, and pretty much needless, as there are lots of other ways to partition the namespace. pseudo-TLDs are not required; they look convenient because they hide the costs. > I know some people say that opens the door for someone to request strings > in IETF and create a denial of service attack against the "approval > process" ICANN runs, but, I trust IETF to do the right thing. > > I think this is the wrong analysis of the risk. If someone seeing the acceptance for .local and .onion decides they want some other resolution mechanism and creates .npr for their novel process for resolution, it will work for those clients updated with local knowledge. When the journalistic outfit "NPR" comes calling at ICANN and gets a name in the root, that community may not even know its going on. But afterwards, we will have local knowledge conflict with the root with ordering of resolution steps deciding what happens. That's fragile for everyone, not least the people now running the gTLD .npr We saw this with squatting in the url scheme space (surely you remember the fun with mms?). Either the process of registering local partitions of the global namespace has to be so easy that they get registered very early, or we have to avoid this style and establish other methods of signalling alternate resolution in application slots. The latter at least *might* scale. This does not. regards, Ted > > Ok, now the question is whether .ONION has passed the bar regarding for > example deployment etc, and I think it has. Yes, more limited deployment > than .LOCAL but definitely deployment, and, if I understand things > correctly, multiple independent implementations and deployments. > > >> What IETF might need is a stopping function for approval of > >> usage of the domain name namespace outside of the DNS. > > > > I think the intent was that the specifications and > > considerations in RFC 6761 established precisely such a stopping rule. > If this "onion." proposal (and/or the other special-use names proposals > I've seen floating around) demonstrate to the community that 6761 is not > adequate, then perhaps we should put those proposals for new special-use > names on hold and go back and review 6761 to see if the evaluation criteria > need > > improvement. > > Agree. > > > Personal opinion (and maybe a hint about something that may need > examination about the way 6761 is being interpreted): If someone came to > the IETF with a new piece of protocol that needed a > > reserved domain name and asked for a root-level name, I assume they > would get a lot of pushback suggesting that they use a > > ARPA. subtree or some commercially-available subdomain instead. > > Note what I wrote above, that IETF special name registry is NOT for things > that goes as a TLD in the root zone. The contrary. So IETF can not this way > allocate a TLD in the root zone, which I interpret your text above implying. > > If you here talk about allocation of a branch of the namespace, the > question is whether bullet 1 in section 2 is strong enough: > > 1. Users: human users are expected to recognize .onion names as > having different security properties, and also being only > available through software that is aware of onion addresses. > > I guess this goes back to discussions similar to whether one should have > URI:HTTP:// or just HTTP:// and we all remember those discussions... > > > I'd hope the IETF would listen carefully to arguments about why a TLD > was really needed, but, assuming we still believe in the distributed > hierarchy model that underlies the DNS, I'd assume that the default would > be "no" and a persuasive case for a > > root-level name would be very hard to make. > > Fair. > > > The difference > > between that scenario and some of the special names proposals that now > seem to be floating around is that, rather than > > engaging with the IETF when the protocols were being designed, the > community involved decided to pick a TLD-style name, squat on it, deploy, > and then come to the IETF looking for help in obtaining formal rights to > the previously-squatted name. It does not seem to be to be in the best > interests of either IETF or the Internet for us to encourage that type of > sequence of events. > > True, but if we look at the chat protocols, IETF could not agree on which > one of three different protocols should move forward. Then XMPP came and, > well, was developed elsewhere and basically "won". > > We now have HTTP/2 which some people do believe could have been done > multiple years ago based on BEEP, which is a very good protocol at least > academically/theoretically...but how is it going with it? > > Anyway... > > I am just saying that having ideas actually be cooked inside IETF is not > easy...and have not been easy for many years. So just the fact an idea is > brought to the IETF when being deployed can not by itself be a reasoning > for saying no. > > That said, I completely understand what you write (I hope!), and you are > right that in there are questions. > > Will we be able to find just objective rules for saying yes or no? I don't > think so...unfortunately. > > Patrik >
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Randy Bush
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… David Conrad
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John R Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Tom Ritter
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Richard Barnes
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Joseph Lorenzo Hall
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Richard Barnes
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Eliot Lear
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… David Cake
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… David Cake
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… David Cake
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Eliot Lear
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Eliot Lear
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Alec Muffett
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Lemon
- Re: domain names that aren't DNS names, was Last … John Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Geoff Huston
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Eliot Lear
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Suzanne Woolf
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … George Michaelson
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Eliot Lear
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Suzanne Woolf
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Douglas Otis
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Eliot Lear
- Re: domain names that aren't DNS names, was Last … Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… David Conrad
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Tim Wicinski
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Lemon
- Weakness of DNS classes (was Re: Last Call: <draf… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Weakness of DNS classes (was Re: Last Call: <… John C Klensin
- Re: domain names that are not DNS names, was Last… John Levine
- Re: domain names that are not DNS names, was Last… Ted Lemon
- Re: Weakness of DNS classes (was Re: Last Call: <… John Levine
- Re: Weakness of DNS classes (was Re: Last Call: <… David Morris
- Re: Weakness of DNS classes (was Re: Last Call: <… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Curran
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Steve Crocker
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … David Conrad
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Dave Crocker
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Dave Crocker
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … David Conrad
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Eliot Lear
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … David Conrad
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Eliot Lear
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Donald Eastlake
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Curran
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Richard Shockey
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John R Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Eliot Lear
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Patrik Fältström
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Patrik Fältström
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John R Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Patrik Fältström
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John R Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Patrik Fältström
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- RE: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Christian Huitema
- RE: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Andrew Sullivan
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Stephen Farrell
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Patrik Fältström
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John C Klensin
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Patrik Fältström
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … John Levine
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Wendy Seltzer
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Alec Muffett
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Chris Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Jacob Appelbaum
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Alec Muffett
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Alec Muffett
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Alec Muffett
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Alec Muffett
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Andrew Sullivan
- RE: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Darcy Kevin (FCA)
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Peter Koch
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Alec Muffett
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Alec Muffett
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Alec Muffett
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Ted Hardie
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Alec Muffett
- RE: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tl… Darcy Kevin (FCA)
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… Nick Mathewson
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt… George Michaelson
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Ted Lemon
- Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was … Dave Crocker