[tor-dev] IMPT -- Re: Future Onion Addresses and Human Factors
Aside: in pursuit of helping Jake register “.onion” as a special name” in an RFC, I am currently being beaten-up on the IETF discussion mail-list regards the potential future length of onion addresses, and that they may possibly exceed the bounds of DNS’ maximum label length of 63 characters: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94332.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94332.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? -a — Alec Muffett Security Infrastructure Facebook Engineering London signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Re: [tor-dev] IMPT -- Re: Future Onion Addresses and Human Factors
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Alec Muffett al...@fb.com wrote: Aside: in pursuit of helping Jake register “.onion” as a special name” in an RFC, I am currently being beaten-up on the IETF discussion mail-list regards the potential future length of onion addresses, and that they may possibly exceed the bounds of DNS’ maximum label length of 63 characters: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94332.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. ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
