Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-lewis-domain-names-00.txt

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:48:12 +0000

On 9/17/15, 17:03, "DNSOP on behalf of Darcy Kevin (FCA)"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Ed,
>	I find the document useful, and illuminating, but that it suffers from
>one glaring omission -- no substantive discussion of the relationship
>between domain names and URIs (the related term "URN"[1] is mentioned in
>Section 1.2, but never expanded upon). To be sure, while the "Authority"
>component of a URI is not *always* based on a DNS name (or a "domain
>name", as distinguished in your Draft), it _usually_ is, and RFC 3986,
>aka STD 66, makes the relationship quite explicit:

Thanks.  I'm stuck in the 90's, what's that web thing?

Seriously, the pointers will help.

>"However, a globally scoped naming
>system, such as DNS fully qualified domain names, is necessary for
>URIs intended to have global scope. URI producers should use names
>that conform to the DNS syntax, even when use of DNS is not
>immediately apparent ..."
>
>So, names in URI "Authority"s should *look* like DNS-style FQDNs, even if
>some other "Authority" resolution-and/or-uniqueness-guaranteeing
>mechanism underpins the particular Scheme.

The issue that gets me here is the so-called .onion names and the
statement (which I've only seen in email) that the labels may exceed DNS
limits someday.  And this is probably why I waffled when digging into the
URI and Domain Names issue.

What I need to reconcile is - "yes" to what you quote and "but" he
descriptions of the Tor Project documents on how Onion routing avoids the
DNS while ... based on some "explicitly implicit" in-band signal.

>Since URIs are so commonplace in modern communication mechanisms
>(including one little app called web browsing :-), I think the tie-in
>between URIs and domain names should at least be mentioned in a
>comprehensive "domain names" document.
>
>														- Kevin
>
>[1] As per STD 66: "Future specifications and related documentation
>should use the general term 'URI' rather than the more restrictive terms
>'URL' and 'URN'".

Noted.  I've been confused on that myself, URN vs. URL.  At one time I was
scolded for using URL where URN was deemed more appropriate, but I suspect
that was a long time ago.