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. -- Jesse
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev