On 07/15/2015 11:04 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
That "Ted".
Yup, Ted pointed that out to me privately--sorry. :)
Keep in mind - I'm saying the document, the internet-draft, doesn't
contain all that it could or should to be a convincing use case. Perhaps
it ticked off all the check boxes of RFC 6761, but I think it lacks what
it needs to be convincing as well as stand the test of time.
Argh. I won't belabor the point, but the criteria established in 6761
are criteria for the IETF to evaluate, not criteria that need to be
documented in the specification. The specification says what to do,
and the working group considered that sufficient. I do too. Can you
explain why it is beneficial for the document to try to make some
statement about how widespread use of TOR is? It's pretty easy for the
working group to look at the situation and say "looks like enough."
It's a lot harder to quantify it in a way that makes sense to put in an
RFC, and I don't think it would be appropriate to do so. I guess we
could say "it is the consensus of the DNSOP working group that use of
.onion is sufficiently widespread to justify publishing this document,"
but I think we are already saying that by requesting its publication.