Subject: [DNSOP] Upcoming P2PNames draft

From: hellekin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 13:47:41 -0300

The authors of draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names are about to
release a new version of the P2PNames draft that integrates the comments
we've received from the P2P systems community.  Unfortunately, the
previous draft didn't receive much attention from the DNSOP WG yet, so
if you have additional remarks on this specific version, please do so.

I am definitely concerned with the fact that the P2PNames draft is not
mentioned in [0] while draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 was adopted by
the WG, without any consideration for previous work, especially, as I
mentioned before, with the existing incompatibilities between the two
drafts.

Currently we have two conflicting interpretations of IANA considerations
for the adoption of .onion, one that was inserted in the DNSOP WG
process by way of chutzpah, and one that is actually concerned with
privacy, but was left pending because it means to cover a logical
surface for all known P2P systems at this time who are willing to
collaborate.

==
hk

[0]: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:25:43 -0700

<WG Secretary hat on>

> [0]: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/

This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the display of that web page. Literally *none* of the drafts listed under "Related Internet-Drafts" are adopted by the WG. The listing in that section are really things that are considered "related to" the WG. There are two broad criteria for "related to":

- The filename for the draft contains the WG name between dashes

- One of the WG chairs has figured out how to add a draft to the list

Your draft didn't fall into either category, yet. That does not mean your draft isn't related to the WG, since your draft is clearly related by the fact it is on the agenda for an upcoming WG meeting, namely the virtual interim next week.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: hellekin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:10:24 -0300

> <WG Secretary hat on>
*** Thank you Paul for your note.  It's really appreciated.
The fact the P2PNames draft does not mention dnsop is because the
process suggests that RFC6761 requests belong to IESG.

Regards,

==
hk