On 07/14/2015 01:28 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
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.
It's certainly appropriate for people who aren't DNSOP participants to
weigh in here, and for DNSOP participants to raise new issues that the
working group missed. But it seems bogus to me for DNSOP participants
to raise the same issue here that they raised in DNSOP and that didn't
get consensus. I believe you are a DNSOP participant, but perhaps I
am mistaken. I think you and at least one other person read my comment
as saying that once the working group has consensus, that's the end of
it, but that wasn't my point. My point is simply that it would be
useless and harmful to the IETF for DNSOP participants to waste the
collective attention of the IETF re-arguing points that already got
consensus in DNSOP. This is a perennial problem in the IETF. Of
course, now we will have a long argument about the appropriateness of my
interjection here instead, but I'm not convinced that that's worse.
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.
I don't see how that helps: if they can appear in URIs, then we still
need to mark that special-use TLD as in use.