On 12 Oct 2016, at 09:29, Jesse V kernelcorn@torproject.org wrote:
On 10/11/2016 12:53 AM, Jeremy Rand wrote:
It's also worth noting that it's been hard enough to get IETF to accept .bit (that effort stalled) -- adding a bunch of other TLD's would probably annoy IETF significantly (and destroy whatever good will exists at IETF right now), and I fully understand why this would annoy them.
I'm not really sure what the right mechanism is for a user to specify "I want this request to either use TLS or be resolved to a .onion record" (which seems to be the primary use case here). Does anyone have suggestions?
As I understand it, the spirit of the naming system API is to resolve $meaningfulName to $randomAddress.onion. It seems pretty clear its focused on A records, but the naming system can support subdomains and CNAME records if it likes. My approach with OnioNS is to simply use a none-ICANN TLD, which is currently ".tor". There's a Trac ticket on which TLD I should use, but it seems most intuitive to use something obvious. Someone suggested that we continue to use .onion, but anything that isn't 16 chars of base32 should be resolving using the naming system. That seems like it would be more confusing. A new TLD seems more intuitive.
Yes, and re-using .onion would make (some) 32-character names invalid, and post prop-224, (some) 53?-character names invalid as well.
This is an undesirable property.
I can also imagine attacks taking advantage of this confusion.
T
-- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------