IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 24 July 2015 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 96DFC1A901F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 1Rn9g5wz1QSz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (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 CC6291A903B for <IETF@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbop1 with SMTP id op1so14219704obb.2 for <IETF@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zJkyH0ESPzayLotcYuvQHtHBy1FmeVtrc5/Esu569xo=; b=zHVsyFkdtlkY4LdgLttmIKlrFG/EKX6AN9LPw7B4SRJGNuquuQkY2hScFWVZL0ubRd O0+m4v0vt/AKQsSX27eFQcwiaIyAf9qNkkOMlsCRXzvL6+gt9HNBMgdSt+bF5cQTsC3g H2nCOvCVlkRLVGhCBO5WABGhAPTiJoBbHdSnTiQ1VnR8p2iPD2nnZoGm/OZNVN0woGuv bEA1M23Lykb5dUuoYROVIJrJ0vxl1E1z6RUCXxN83XUHGnY3wvVZfi8h+ncxRtShI4bG curR9n7or8n+y089srtKu7qhxita+AU0LuMuOC5mvPvtxZLxkyZ29WQ8cxFD7fSvEgoE cZHg==
X-Received: by 10.182.39.194 with SMTP id r2mr14982967obk.20.1437736742279; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.173.3 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ACE7B6AF-8FDF-42F9-BE5A-8FB45FB64AE5@virtualized.org>
References: <20150720192219.53802.qmail@ary.lan> <55ADF2A7.3080403@cisco.com> <A0418F96-1D79-4BE9-A72A-7A47641E4AF3@gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1apWx2M7V-O6ea2kvor7Di6=jYMh-uY2ouTsgjkV6vLw@mail.gmail.com> <20150722084204.GA15378@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAKr6gn2413-2XW8d_stw0dTmP-KsmGgFgQ3tVXEgXrXmnCiQow@mail.gmail.com> <6E97605B-C11E-4349-90FC-109E4983112C@istaff.org> <ACE7B6AF-8FDF-42F9-BE5A-8FB45FB64AE5@virtualized.org>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 07:18:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEY3NE1JDABXZ2V+z8gjk_uW1cVgh095HKyYduOxOyoaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Zd7EtUZxAoas6IQQzlYjKbu_yCo>
Cc: ietf <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, 24 Jul 2015 11:19:17 -0000

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:52 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> John,
>
> ...
>
> The root zone is NOT the entire top-level of the identifier space. It is the top-level of the subset of the identifier space that is comprised of (a) strings that are valid in the DNS protocol ...
>
> Even if you meant "what could potentially be placed in the root zone", this would still be limited by (a) by the simple fact that the root zone is a DNS protocol implementation artifact, not a namespace artifact, and is thus constrained by the limitations of the DNS protocol.

If you truly mean the DNS protocol, as opposed to various user
interfaces or conventions, labels in DNS names are binary byte strings
restricted only by a maximum length of 63 bytes (and the minimum
length zero is only permitted as indicating the root). Interesting
byte values such as 0x00 or 0xFF work just fine inside labels in the
DNS protocol.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email