My two cents: I think it might be good to scope the 6761 issue, with something like the following:
> The http (and similar) URIs must rely on some name resolution mechanism(s) > to interpret the "authority" field and ultimately convert it into a > transport identifier (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, carrier pigeon). * If/when* DNS is consulted for resolution of the authority field, directly > or indirectly, strict adherence to the spirit and text of RFC 6761 is > required. I.e. it is necessary to recognize all special use names, and necessary to > not resolve such names via DNS. Hope this helps at least a little. Brian On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 2:43 PM Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi DNSOP, > > In the HTTPWG, we have an open issue about how to account for .onion in > HTTP URL processing: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/10 > > Our discussion led us to believe we'd do better to have a general > statement about special-use names when dereferencing HTTP URLs. > > It's possible such text might end up here: > > https://httpwg.org/http-core/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-latest.html#http.uri > .... along with the following section on HTTPS, and of course in Security > Considerations. > > Do folks have thoughts about what it should say, and would any one be > willing to help? > > Cheers, > > P.S. I haven't CC'd the HTTP WG to avoid issues with cross-posting; I'll > point the WG at discussion here. > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
