Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 01:14:01 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : The .onion Special-Use Domain Name
        Authors         : Jacob Appelbaum
                          Alec Muffett
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-01.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2015-09-09

Abstract:
   This document registers the ".onion" Special-Use Domain Name.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:41:33 +0900 (JST)

Sorry too late to comment,

The word "Caching DNS Servers" and "Caching servers" are not defined
by DNS RFCs. They should be "full-service resolvers" defined by RFC 1123.

# Some authoritative DNS server software have packet cache or hot spot
# cache.  They may be "caching DNS servers".

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <[email-masked]>

---

From: hellekin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 06:33:31 -0300

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/

I welcome the new draft.  I must have missed the discussion for this
passage at the end of section 2:

"Note that the restriction upon the registration of .onion names
does not prohibit IANA from inserting a record into the root zone
database to reserve the name.

Likewise, it does not prevent non-DNS service providers (such as
trust providers) from supporting .onion names in their
applications."

What would a DNS record about .onion in the root zone be used for?  How
is it important to mention what the document does not prevent?  I gather
the latter "non prevention" is to authorize SSL CAs to produce x509
certificates for .onion services.  Maybe this should reference the CAB
forum more directly.

*

The last line of Section 4 mentions: "updated to drop any request to the
".onion" TLD."

Wouldn't it be better to avoid using TLD in this context?

---

From: "Joe Abley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:43:49 +0200

On 9 Sep 2015, at 11:33, hellekin wrote:

> What would a DNS record about .onion in the root zone be used for?

It could be used to provide delegation or DNAME redirection to the AS112 
infrastructure, to sink leaked onion queries that do appear on the 
Internet (e.g. RFC 7534, RFC 7535).

Joe

---

From: Alec Muffett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:46:17 +0000

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:33, hellekin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Signed PGP part

I am advised by people I trust that "root zone database" > "root zone" and that this "means the DB that IANA uses to keep track of the root zone."

i.e.: the kind of stuff at http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml <http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml>

Good catch about the improper use of "TLD" in the document, thank you.  We'll ask the RFC editors to address that.

Thanks!

    -a