On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Alec Muffett <alecm(_at_)fb(_dot_)com> wrote:
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 think that's (broadly) a good solution.
The important thing here AFAIU is not to nail down the exact semantics
of current .onion addresses or post-revision .onion addresses or
25-years-from-now .onion addresses... but rather to carve out enough
space for this and future revisions.
So it's IMO fine to say ".onion addresses are case-insensitive and
will comply with existing DNS limitations for label lengths (63) and
maximum fqdn lengths (253ish)".
But it it would be problematic to say something like ".onion addresses
are are exactly N characters long" or ".onion addresses have the
following structure" or ".onion addresses have exactly two labels" or
anything like that. So let's avoid those.
cordially,
--
Nick