On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Alec Muffett <alecm@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi again, Ted!
> Because the registry assumed that the IETF had change control for special use names that involved non-DNS resolutions. Clearly it does not for .onion, so we are working out what to do in real time, rather than simply following a well trodden path.
[...]
> Good faith don't grow Christmas trees, in the words of my grandfather. My frank assessment is that if the Tor community can commit in good faith to follow the DNS constraints for its identifiers (don't step on IDN rules, follow the length guidelines, etc.), the IETF should register .onion and then immediately close the registry for repairs and refactoring.
>
> But that's just my own opinion,
Your grandfather spoke wise words. Nick Mathewson is the engineer who leads Tor development on Onion services. He writes thusly on this matter:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-August/009275.html
How will that fly with you?
If you're willing to put a statement like it in the draft, that works for me; it would need to include a slightly broader commitment (not to step on other syntax bits, like the IDNA prefix etc), but I think the broader statement would go to exactly the same goal.
I'm sorry to read in the above link that you feel beaten up by this; I've tried to be quite careful in noting that I think the fault here is in the registry itself, not this registration. There were some unanticipated consequences to this that this registration brings to light; we now need to deal with those. That's all that's going on.
regards,
Ted