Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

From: str4d <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:40:34 +0000 (UTC)

On 29/03/16 07:53, John Levine wrote:
> Finally, no matter what we do, at some point someone will come by with
> .GARLIC which is like .ONION but stronger and they will say (with some
> justification) that it's used by a zillion people around the world.
> "You should have used GARLIC.ALT." "Yeah, I guess so, but we didn't,
> sorry."  Then we'll have to deal with it one way or the other.  I hope
> that .alt will push that day off farther into the future but it's
> unlikely to push it to infinity.

Injecting a little levity: I2P does in fact use a variant of onion
routing called garlic routing! But we are already in the 6761 process
for .I2P, and have absolutely no desire to take garlic any further than
a technical metaphor :)

str4d

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:53:32 -0300

Whats your reaction going to be, to a closed 6761 because if you come
to the microphone with a "but we built to the userbase, we have
millions" and make bambi eyes, I feel a bit like saying "you were
warned"

ie, squatting a domain, is squatting a domain, no  matter how much you
believe in your own process. If you populate code to the label, a
specific label, you're in moral hazard.

You cannot predict what label (if any) you will get. You need to code
agile, to a label being in another space (eg .alt) which is also
unknown. it has to be in a .conf or other runtime option, not hard
coded.

forever.

-G

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:40 AM, str4d <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: str4d <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:03:45 +0000 (UTC)

> millions" and make bambi eyes, I feel a bit like saying "you were

When and where? In this discussion?

As has been stated long ago in this discussion, I2P has been using .i2p
since 2005 (long before my time), for exactly the same reasons as Tor
used .onion. Using the current discussion as an attempt to retroactively
alter how the IETF has done outreach regarding TLDs in the past is
disingenuous.

> specific label, you're in moral hazard.

As I have also stated long ago in this discussion, I did in fact look
into an alternate avenue which would be a much better technical fit:
defining an AF_I2P. I could find *no way* to achieve this without
requiring patches to the kernels of every OS that we wanted to release
on. So given the choice between "impossible or indefinitely-blocked
solution" and "solution that works", is it surprising that the Tor and
I2P developers went the way they did?

> unknown. it has to be in a .conf or other runtime option, not hard

If that's the case, why can't everyone using .home or .mail or .corp
also switch? Answer: legacy software. We have tens of thousands of I2P
routers out there, in use right now. We do have some level of control
over *some* of them via updates (but only if the users accept the
update), but we have zero control over all the client software that has
been written over the last decade that expects to see a .i2p address. At
this point, switching .tld is not an option, which leaves us blocked in
the same position as Tor was regarding non-self-signed SSL certificates.

str4d

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 16:14:29 -0300

> unknown. it has to be in a .conf or other runtime option, not hard

which would be super useful implementation advice to the community so
not to create moral hazard in the future.