On 07/17/2015 02:57 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i would argue, by the way, that "onion" is a kind of technology, onion > routing, of which Tor is the first and best-known but not the last. so, > i'll prefer .tor.external over .onion.external. > > [snip] > > compared to alt, yes. note that .external is long on purpose-- to avoid > conflict with nature. > *** By "conflict with nature" do you mean that having to type .external with one thumb would strain it faster, leading to an obsolescence of hand-held devices?
More seriously, does that mean you're opposing the .onion draft, or are you simply drifting away to the later work on RFC6761bis? I'm asking because the authors requested .onion, not .tor, nor .tor.alt, nor .tor.external. I suppose that if .exit was part of this draft, it would make more sense why .onion and .exit instead of a single .tor. That said, .tor would save more thumbs. == hk _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
