On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Alec Muffett <alecm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Given that this is about Onion Registration rather than about Tor Project, > some wording like > > “Onion addresses are [blah description blah] and which are consistent with > DNS syntax limitations of 63 character labels..." > > …which I think would impose a constraint whilst being aimed at the > supposedly correct target. > > I’ll copy Nick on this to be doubly certain. I think that's (broadly) a good solution. The important thing here AFAIU is not to nail down the exact semantics of current .onion addresses or post-revision .onion addresses or 25-years-from-now .onion addresses... but rather to carve out enough space for this and future revisions. So it's IMO fine to say ".onion addresses are case-insensitive and will comply with existing DNS limitations for label lengths (63) and maximum fqdn lengths (253ish)". But it it would be problematic to say something like ".onion addresses are are exactly N characters long" or ".onion addresses have the following structure" or ".onion addresses have exactly two labels" or anything like that. So let's avoid those. cordially, -- Nick