On 2014-02-04 02:21, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:08:59PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: >> > >> > purely on the basis that some of us don't like what they did. We >> > need a better reason than that, and thus far none has been stated. > In the particular case of .onion, I'm not sure I agree none has been > stated. But let me try again: > > If you want to use a name in DNS protocol slots, then you need a DNS > name. You didn't get a DNS name, and instead you used a label > that wasn't under your control.
I would like to express the situation slightly different, or rather, this what you describe is one situation. Another situation which I think is more complicated is when a name is needed that looks like a domain name, but is never to be used in DNS. The only thing you need is a string that is not used as a domain name. So we have (at least): 1. Strings that are used in DNS, allocated as they where intended to be allocated 2. Strings that are to be used in DNS, with special roots 3. Strings that are to be used in DNS, but only in local environments (search path, .local etc) 4. Strings that looks like domain names but are never to be used in DNS, but still needs to be globally unique 5. Strings that looks like domain names but are never to be used in DNS, that does not need to be globally unique We know about 1. We say no to 2. We know about 3. What is new is 4 and 5. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
