Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

On 10/07/2016 08:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Special Use Names Summary > Hello DNSOP WG, I let a week pass so that others can comment, but apparently this summary didn't bring much of them. Indeed I have a troubling issue with it: how is that actionable? IOW, what's next? Thank you, ==

Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names

On 10/07/2016 06:36 PM, Alain Durand wrote: > > However, there is something that can be done before: provide a safe place > in the DNS tree where people can exist without colliding with the rest of > the tree. We can't prevent people from ignoring it and keep using whatever > name they want, but

Re: [DNSOP] In a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream, was On the call for adoption on Special Use Names

On 10/06/2016 09:22 AM, avri doria wrote: > > As for the so-called toxic waste names (i really find that terminology > problematic) > I agree it's a problem to use that kind of vocabulary to convey a technical context. > the so called waste pile of usurped names > Therefore this is also a

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On 10/01/2016 07:12 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > the IETF doesn't have the money for lawyers in that arena. > > [snip] > > I do not think the IETF should create "Special Names" that conflict > with the naming process which has been delegated to ICANN. > > [snip] > > The IETF giving them .onion in

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

On 09/27/2016 02:37 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > My opinion really doesn't matter, but I happen to think that, at this > point, we should evaluate the requested P2P names according to RFC > 6761 -- you followed the process in effect *at the time*, and jumped > through many hoops. The process is

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. > > Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain >

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On 09/21/2016 11:30 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > None of these named spaces would "fail" to work as sub-spaces of .ALT > or .arpa or any other community-led IETF tech community managed label. > All of them with a requirement for global uniqueness will fail with .ALT, per .ALT draft. Etc. >

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

On 09/22/2016 12:31 AM, George Michaelson wrote: > > what community burden is taken in the wide, if a new TLD is > allocated in 6761 to break out of the DNS. > I'm sorry but, what do you mean 'to break out of the DNS'? == hk ___ DNSOP mailing list

Re: [DNSOP] moving forward on special use names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/20/2016 08:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > In a real sense the question at hand is a very practical one: > “Which of these documents do you think needs less work?" > Having read both drafts, and from the perspective of "Names resolved * with

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/20/2016 01:33 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > And I'm still not convinced there is a problem to solve > (unless the real issue is "how to prevent the registration of .gnu and > .bit?") > Even if I supported the SUDN of P2P systems draft

Re: [DNSOP] update on work item regarding special use names (RFC 6761)

On 02/12/2016 01:48 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/ > Hello, This ID seems to require the definition of a new registry, and Section 6 to suggest how this would be used. I think this goes way beyond what needs to be done in

Re: [DNSOP] ARCING BoF and mailing list

On 01/28/2016 05:38 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Suzanne: Since you are one of the BoF initiators here, maybe you can > clarify a few things. > > - How does this relate to the other DNSOP work in this area such as .alt? > > - Does this change the work of the 6761bis design team? > > - How is it

Re: [DNSOP] Some thoughts on special-use names, from an application standpoint

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/26/2015 06:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Given this context, I was disturbed to hear the design team presentati on > in Yokohama > So you mean there's an already working team on the revision of RFC6761, and that team had the time to

Re: [DNSOP] 6761bis Design Team Lead

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/04/2015 03:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 03:06:04AM -0500, > Warren Kumari wrote > a message of 28 lines which said: > >> The chairs also asked for volunteers for the design team on October

Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/21/2015 11:50 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > I think defining -whether- name.onion is a Domain Name will make us > re-think how Domain Names interoperate amongst protocols beyond the DN S. > Agreed, but why limit to .onion? Can your example

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-01.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/09/2015 05:14 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ > I welcome the new draft. I must have missed the discussion for this

Re: [DNSOP] Jari Arkko's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: (with COMMENT)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/03/2015 11:36 AM, Joel Halpern wrote: > Actually, DownRef won't cut it as far as I can tell. > > The two documents are not stable. As a github reference, > they are simply "the most current version of foo". > Come on, GitHub is a

Re: [DNSOP] a long way from reservations on reservations, was Barry Leiba's Abstain

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/01/2015 07:39 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > > Tor doesn't leak .onions > > If the name is reserved and the process is followed, we'll hopefully > be able to stop most of the leakage in the DNS. > One clear example that was documented

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 08/10/2015 01:50 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: ​ It does a fine job with .example since that's fundamentally just a reservation, but .onion is showing its warts. Hi Ted, I fully agree with Alec, and do not understand how .onion would differ from .example in that case, especially since as we're

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/20/2015 10:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: So... Alec and I did a bit of wordsmithing and what I propose is a slight clarification on the existing text, based on this exchange, and here it is: Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary number of subdomain

Re: [DNSOP] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00

that tor-address also ought to be a normative reference. Minor issues: It is not clear that a github reference without version identification is sufficiently stable for a normative reference from an RFC. Hi Joel, hellekin started a discussion on the tor-dev list about getting a URI

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/17/2015 11:20 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states: Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have an arbitrary

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/17/2015 11:32 AM, David Conrad wrote: No. .LOCAL was not already in the root zone. .FOO is. *** Therefore the .FOO label is not available for Special-Use anymore, end of story. A Special-Use name cannot be an already registered name in the root zone. If you referring to e.g., .corp

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/17/2015 07:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:39:24PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: we only need one cutout, something like .external, with an IANA-maintained registry of non-dns uses, each pointing to an RFC that

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/17/2015 12:17 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: I have no particular objection to the concept here, but I do have a question about one sentence in the draft. Section 1 states: Like Top-Level Domain Names, .onion addresses can have

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/17/2015 02:57 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: i would argue, by the way, that onion is a kind of technology, onion routing, of which Tor is the first and best-known but not the last. so, i'll prefer .tor.external over .onion.external. [snip] compared to alt, yes. note that .external is long

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/17/2015 03:10 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: i apologize for the lack of a pre-existing syntactic framework into which tor's names could have been encapsulated from the outset. i apologize even more for the fact that tor's perfectly reasonable request for .onion is now causing this working

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/17/2015 10:41 PM, John Levine wrote: A mechanical criterion might be observable traffic from at least 100,000 different IP addresses every day for at least 30 days. That'd be a horrible criterion, not least because it's easy for a modestly well funded adversary to fake. *** Also, if

Re: [DNSOP] Tor frustration

On 07/17/2015 10:39 PM, Ralf Weber wrote: Am I right that there is leakage of dns requests with .onion TLDs? If so isn't that a bug in their software? *** Almost: 1) .onion is not a TLD (sorry, I made the mistake myself to abuse TLD, although I had defined pTLD for that purpose--as in:

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/15/2015 03:55 PM, David Conrad wrote: I'm intrigued how you derived an insult from my statement that it was squatting. I guess that's the proximity of blunt and squatting that gave me this impression. You're wrong. I stand

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/15/2015 03:46 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: What if I copied the onion draft, changed all of the uses of onion to carrot, and then threw in some supporting documents to describe some other system that used carrot as it's base identifier? On the heels of onion's admission to the Special Use

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

On 07/15/2015 09:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: The document defines the use of the name by referring to a couple of references, none of which appears to be published in a way that can be referenced except by URL. I agree that the URL could be use more foresight, e.g.

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt (The .onion Special-Use Domain Name) to Proposed Standard

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/14/2015 11:37 PM, David Conrad wrote: To put it bluntly, from a certain perspective, 6762 and dnsop-onion are essentially about the same thing: they are formalizing squatting on namespace (by Apple in the first instance and by TOR in the

Re: [DNSOP] perspective Re: Thoughts on the top level name space

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/08/2015 08:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: It further seems to me that an attempt to list names that are currently in the public root zone or might someday be in the public root zone has a high risk of being simply backwards if the purpose

Re: [DNSOP] More after onion? was Re: Some distinctions and a request

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/02/2015 10:05 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: You're right. To underscore, it's because of the groups that don't engage, and have no responsibility to do so, that the IETF has to defend itself. It wouldn't take much work Keep in mind that

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/22/2015 04:21 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: While I understand why you feel 2.6 should contain information about user's privacy, it currently seems to meet the requirements for [RFC6761]. *** I consider important that readers keep the primary

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/20/2015 03:12 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/ *** 2.3 has a repeat either. 2.6 reads correctly, but the more important reason IMO is the risk of privacy leak for the user.

Re: [DNSOP] Post-Interim considering the 4 proposals

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/15/2015 08:28 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote: Hi, *** Thank you for this report. I hope to read the minutes soon. * I note that you omitted to mention Namecoin and the .BIT pTLD. * You wrote, referring to overlay networks: Their

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/13/2015 05:51 PM, John Levine wrote: which means that ICANN is sitting on $3.7 million in application fees which they will presumably have to refund, as well as five withdrawn applications from parties who got partial refunds and would

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/13/2015 03:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: we should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else. Managing top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS -- even if people expect them to be part of a local root or

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/12/2015 03:12 AM, Alec Muffett wrote: ... both Firefox... One of them - the Tor Browser - is using a SOCKS daemon which knows that “.onion” is special and shouldn’t be looked up in the public DNS. *** So in my understanding of the scope

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/12/2015 04:18 AM, Alec Muffett wrote: On May 12, 2015, at 7:44 AM, hellekin helle...@gnu.org wrote: *** So in my understanding of the scope boundaries of RFC6761 IANA considerations, which seems to be the main difference between our

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/12/2015 09:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Is your complaint that appelbaum-dnsop-onion reads to you as though such special applications are the only way to do this? If so, then you're right that it needs adjustment. *** Yes, my concern

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 How does one join the meeting with XMPP? I confirm that the WebEx software is not compatible with my OS. == hk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVUiIFXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w

[DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Since Alec Muffett seems to have better things to do, I feel obligated to do what he should have done before publishing his draft: comparing the IANA Considerations for .onion in the draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04 (P2PNames) and

Re: [DNSOP] A comparison of IANA Considerations for .onion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/11/2015 08:21 PM, Alec Muffett wrote: This might be an issue so long as your threat model includes blindly unaware users who are typing .onion addresses into non-Tor-capable browsers in the (presumably first-time) expectation that it will

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/08/2015 01:48 PM, David Conrad wrote: Mark, home, corp and perhaps mail need special handling if we really want to not cause problems for those using those tlds internally. Why? *** Citing IETF92 slides by Lyman Chapin and Mark

Re: [DNSOP] Interim DNSOP WG meeting on Special Use Names: some reading material

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/06/2015 03:07 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Logistics details will follow shortly, but we have a webex URL *** As far as I understand, WebEx requires non-free software to work, which is a problem that will certainly make my participation more

[DNSOP] Upcoming P2PNames draft

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 The authors of draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names are about to release a new version of the P2PNames draft that integrates the comments we've received from the P2P systems community. Unfortunately, the previous draft didn't receive much

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/23/15 10:31, Andrew Sullivan wrote: if somehow the onion name leaked and ended up in the DNS, it's not a big deal *** Well, although you're right as far as *applications* are concerned, this is still a big deal because humans are using

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/24/15 20:03, Alec Muffett wrote: Hi Hellekin! I would agree that leak avoidance is “a major” rather than “the prime” point of having .onion reserved as a TLD. *** Agreed. I came from the privacy side of the arguments, which tends

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/18/15 08:01, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: Following this discussion from a distance, I cannot help wondering whether this is special names stuff might in violate RFC 2860 section 4.3. *** Assignment of special names belongs to assignment of

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/17/15 18:39, Tim Wicinski wrote: the implications of widening use of RFC 6761. *** You certainly mean: the implications of using RFC 6761, given that so far, it's only been used by its creator, Apple Inc. in RFC 6762 (if 6761 itself is not

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6761 discussion (“special names”)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Do you have feedback on the idea of an interim meeting for DNSOP to address these drafts in more depth *** Thank you Suzanne for your clarification. My only feedback is that such meeting is very welcome. I hope the discussion will be

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/17/15 12:58, David Conrad wrote: I doubt arguments of this nature are particular helpful. *** I feel obliged to reflect this to you. My personal observation is that one of the problems with your draft *** Maybe you should direct

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03/16/15 23:20, Paul Wouters wrote: It seems odd that two documents would be requesting an IANA action for .onion ? *** Well yes, it sounds like a mistake to me. But we can also consider it a god-given gift for people who argued against

Re: [DNSOP] Strong objection to draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-04

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/15/15 21:00, Warren Kumari wrote: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04, Section 3 (Terminology and Conventions Used in This Document): The abbreviation pTLD is used in this document to mean a pseudo Top-Level Domain, i.e., a

Re: [DNSOP] Updating the DNS Registration Model to Keep Pace with Today’s Internet

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/05/2015 07:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: But be careful. There be dragons here. Computers updating computers to cont rol who controls the domains? Computers update computers all the time. It's about establishing the right controls.

Re: [DNSOP] Complying with draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/25/2015 09:01 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: get the IETF to recommend to IANA that these names be reserved *** Yes indeed. Can we get back to the draft-04? It sure will bring up some interesting if not controversial comments, as some parts

[DNSOP] P2PNames Draft 04: we're adding MORECOWBELL

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Dear list members, today the French newspaper Le Monde published information on a secret NSA program, MORECOWBELL [0], that reveals the agency has been using the DNS infrastructure to monitor host and website activity across the Internet. This

Re: [DNSOP] identifying an identifier's name space was Re: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-03

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/06/2015 09:42 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Which perhaps suggests an W3C approach instead of an IETF one ? httpoo://(ToR identifier) (oo for over onion, although it makes a curious acronym) httpob://(name coin address) *** Our draft is

Re: [DNSOP] identifying an identifier's name space was Re: draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-03

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/07/2015 12:38 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Some of these proposals are in fact using names in domain name slots as ways of indicating that the protocol itself ought to be different. The hint a name below onion is giving is, Not really the

Re: [DNSOP] draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-03

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/05/2015 03:25 PM, David Conrad wrote: I think you missed Andrew's point. *** Thank you David for shedding some light. All 6 technologies use a string that looks like a domain name but isn't intended for use in the DNS. Why does it

[DNSOP] P2PNames Draft 03 Released

, and Tor - - Remove alternate (confusing) use of dot-tld notation - - Add Leif Ryge as author - - Integrate community feedback If you're tweeting, you're welcome to circulate https://twitter.com/hellekin/status/548082724980797440 and the #P2PNames hashtag. Thank you for your attention, and happy birthday

Re: [DNSOP] Draft on censorship, and DNS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/09/2014 06:35 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: If you want to do anything useful in counter-censorship then you have to think of using steganography *** If you use steganography, that probably means you're sending secrets over a cleartext

[DNSOP] draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-02

for special use. The following six domains relate to security-focused peer-to-peer systems. They are: .gnu, .zkey, .onion, .exit, .i2p, and .bit. * Thank you for your attention and consideration, Hellekin O. Wolf, editor. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux