Subject: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:04:38 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Registering this name seems warranted in light of the potential security
impact. We need to make our processes work for the Internet, not vice
versa.

I agree with Alvaro and Stephen's comments. In particular, to my eye
[tor-rendezvous] should be a normative reference given item #3 in Section
2. However, it seems more important to publish this document than to
re-issue the last call to call out a new downref.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:11:44 -0700

> re-issue the last call to call out a new downref.

I'm not sure that I  agree that  this would require a downref were it
cited normatively. the citation is to a document maintained by the third
party not to a informational draft describing the specification that is
maintained by the third party. the tor project protocol specific meets
some reasonable definitions of an open standard.

That said this document is not a protocol specification, it is a
resource reservation which was my rational for allowing this to be
treated this as informational references. The requirement to specify dns
protocol behavior with respect to a resource is a requirement of the
6761 resource reservation and it might well be a reason to cite that
(which is cited already) but the current reference is essentially to the
expectations of the protocol (tor) whereas the requirement is imposed on
non(tor protocol) actors by the 6761 reservation.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:58:25 -0700

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 5:11 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Fair enough. I mentioned this only because I explicitly do not think this document needs to be last-called again.

> non(tor protocol) actors by the 6761 reservation.

Hmm, this sounds a little like wanting to have it both ways. I understand where the language came from, but the upshot of it is an implementation requirement on resolvers. I mean, if one way of meeting the MUST requirement is to implement what is specified in [tor-rendezvous], doesn’t that make [tor-rendezvous] precisely meet the definition of a normative reference?

On the other hand, I don’t see anything in 6761 that says the answers to the questions need to be normatively specified. So maybe the text for #3 would make more sense if it is said "Resolvers that do not respond to requests for .onion names by resolving them according to [tor-rendezvous] MUST respond with NXDOMAIN.”

Alissa