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

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

you can take the discussion here as indicating some loud voices for "RFC
6761 was a mistake" so the -BIS document should consider one option being
to say "we made a mistake: we don't do this"

-G

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Eliot,
>
> On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:20 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> That's exactly it.  Some mechanism is needed to address pragmatics of a
> situation, something that the IETF has a pretty good (albeit not
> perfect) record on addressing.  That mechanism could sit at ICANN, the
> IETF, or even both organizations.  No matter what one's opinion of Tor
> is, the fact is that it's out there and in use.  They don't intend that
> the DNS be used, and yet there is clearly an interaction between the two
> namespaces at the CA level.  It's possible that the CA people could have
> created a new usage constraint, but history shows that the extension
> isn't well accepted, and that could actually hinder secure deployment.
>
>
> FWIW— DNSOP has discussed these issues at some length, and to the extent
> that an answer to the interesting questions here lie within what the WG can
> do, we’re forming a design team to examine them and consider the
> possibility the community needs to work on a revision to RFC 6761.
>
> For some of the questions pulled from discussion on .onion (WG and IETF
> LC) and other internet-drafts proposing special-use names registry
> additions, see the slides as included in the meeting materials,
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dnsop-7.pdf.
>
>
> best,
> Suzanne
>
>