On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Given that the working group already discussed the layer 9 issues and had consensus to publish this document, I think it would be unfortunate and inappropriate to re-try all of the same issues again on the IETF mailing list.
Given that the point of IETF Last Call is to determine if there is IETF consensus on the working group's analysis and proposal, I find "inappropriate" an odd choice of words here. The IETF as a whole may have a different sense of the trade-offs here.
If working group participants feel that the consensus call was made in error, they should appeal the consensus call using the IETF appeals process, rather than re-arguing the same points on the IETF mailing list.
I say this with utmost respect and appreciation for the DNSOP working group participant who has attempted to begin such an argument already. :)
I have a great deal of respect for the folks in DNSOP, and a similar amount for those who created and TOR. But I believe that this approach to segmenting the namespace for protocol resolution does not scale well. I would far prefer a notation that onion addresses can appear in the authority section of URIs without them being DNS names, something that RFC 3986 allows with the registered name syntax.
Your mileage may vary,
regards,
Ted