>The second problem was that CAs refused to sign certificates for .onion. Again, >this was not an IETF problem. But somehow the tor project managed to put >pressure on the IETF to grant them that name. > >I'd say this is a problem.
With the vast amount of money and effort spent on Internet Governance you wouldn't expect to find a governance vacuum, but whaddaya know, that's what we have. The CAs are asking if they should sign .onion and presumably other oddball names that come along, and want an authority they can point to for the answer. ICANN (or perhaps some people within ICANN) are asking whether they should delegate .corp, .home, and .mail and presumably other toxic waste names, and want an authority they can point to for the answer. The P2P crowd would like to carve out some names to run their resolution scheme in parallel with the DNS, and it appears they'd also like an authority they can point at. I suppose it's flattering that everyone is looking at us, but as we are seeing, just because a vacuum sucks (by definition, after all) does not necessarily mean we are qualified to fill it. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
