>> 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)". >> Which contradicts draft-lewis-domain-names-00 > > > So - and not to be pointed - but in your email I reference, should I ignore > that for the sake of this document? I mean what the message says seems to > contradict what you are quoting from Mathewson - which is fine - but this is > something unclear to me.
Yes, you should ignore that text. Nick is the engineer at Tor who implements the relevant code. In the following, he provides the following undertaking: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-August/009275.html <https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-August/009275.html> > The examples in Proposal 224 are a mere 53 characters long leaving 10 to > play with for padding-hyphens and possibly checksum characters. > > Nick: Is this likely to need to change? Or might there be a need to encode > > 315 bits / 63 chars total? I don't anticipate this changing. If there were ever a need to encode more than that number of bits, we'd add an extra label. So, .onion addresses will stay within DNS bounds. :-) - alec
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
