On 03/09/2015 18:05, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Which means that the real question is whether the references need to
be understood to understand the registration. This judgment belongs
to the IESG, not to me. I reviewed based on my understanding. If
the assignment to Tor of .onion is for any use that Tor chooses, then
indeed the references are informative. If the assignment is for use
for some specific problem and behavior, then the references are
normative. The wording of the draft led me to believe it was the
latter. In either case, the draft should be clear about what it is
doing.
The references seem pretty clearly to me to be informative. I don’t
understand why there’s any thought that they need to be considered
normative. You don’t need to read the TOR spec to tell whether or
not a domain name is under the .onion special-use TLD.
The issue stems from the RFC2119 keyword in
3. Name Resolution APIs and Libraries: Resolvers MUST either either
respond to requests for .onion names by resolving them according
to [tor-rendezvous
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00#ref-tor-rendezvous>] or by responding with NXDOMAIN.
Alissa proposed:
"Resolvers that do not respond to requests for .onion names by resolving
them according to [tor-rendezvous] MUST respond with NXDOMAIN.”
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
