> On 12 Oct 2016, at 09:29, Jesse V <kernelcorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev