On Aug 12, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
If you're willing to put a statement like it in the draft, that works for
me; it would need to include a slightly broader commitment (not to step on
other syntax bits, like the IDNA prefix etc), but I think the broader
statement would go to exactly the same goal.
Given that this is about Onion Registration rather than about Tor Project, some
wording like
“Onion addresses are [blah description blah] and which are consistent with DNS
syntax limitations of 63 character labels..."
…which I think would impose a constraint whilst being aimed at the supposedly
correct target.
I’ll copy Nick on this to be doubly certain.
I'm sorry to read in the above link that you feel beaten up by this; I've
tried to be quite careful in noting that I think the fault here is in the
registry itself, not this registration. There were some unanticipated
consequences to this that this registration brings to light; we now need to
deal with those. That's all that's going on.
Obliged. From this end there is a clear and present deadline as described at:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14065.html
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg14065.html>
…and I hope that amendments sympathetic with resolving this issue can be made
without requiring a complete "go-around" cycle.
Thanks!
- alec
—
Alec Muffett
Security Infrastructure
Facebook Engineering
London
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail