On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ted Lemon
<ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
Given that the working group already discussed the layer 9 issues and had
consensus to publish this document, I think it would be unfortunate and
inappropriate to re-try all of the same issues again on the IETF mailing
list.
Given that the point of IETF Last Call is to determine if there is IETF
consensus on the working group's analysis and proposal, I find
"inappropriate" an odd choice of words here. The IETF as a whole may have
a different sense of the trade-offs here.
If working group participants feel that the consensus call was made in
error, they should appeal the consensus call using the IETF appeals
process, rather than re-arguing the same points on the IETF mailing list.
I say this with utmost respect and appreciation for the DNSOP working
group participant who has attempted to begin such an argument already. :)
I have a great deal of respect for the folks in DNSOP, and a similar
amount for those who created and TOR. But I believe that this approach to
segmenting the namespace for protocol resolution does not scale well. I
would far prefer a notation that onion addresses can appear in the
authority section of URIs without them being DNS names, something that RFC
3986 allows with the registered name syntax.
Your mileage may vary,
regards,
Ted