Dear Tor developers,
would it be possible to add https://torproject.org/spec page, including anchors for the various specifications: #tor-protocol, #tor-rendezvous, etc. pointing to the repository, to accommodate the General Area Review Team's comments, enable future stable reference to Tor specs, and move on?
That would be very, very simple to implement, and very, very useful as a temporary fix since I don't see the Tor project nor the IETF releasing Tor specs RFCs before the CAB forum's deadline is reached within four months.
Thank you,
== hk
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [DNSOP] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 05:25:25 -0400 From: Joel M. Halpern jmh@joelhalpern.com To: A. Jean Mahoney mahoney@nostrum.com, General Area Review Team gen-art@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00 The .onion Special-Use Domain Name Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 18-July-2015 IETF LC End Date: 11-August-2015 IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
Major issues: It seems to this reviewer that at least the definition of how to use these names, reference tor-rendezvous, needs to be a normative reference. It appears likely that tor-address also ought to be a normative reference.
Minor issues: It is not clear that a github reference without version identification is sufficiently stable for a normative reference from an RFC.
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Hi hellekin,
On 07/18/2015 12:22 PM, hellekin wrote:
Dear Tor developers,
would it be possible to add https://torproject.org/spec page,
We have https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#DesignDoc which points to
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/rend-spec.txt etc.
Do you think we need a new and different page?
--Wendy
including
anchors for the various specifications: #tor-protocol, #tor-rendezvous, etc. pointing to the repository, to accommodate the General Area Review Team's comments, enable future stable reference to Tor specs, and move on?
That would be very, very simple to implement, and very, very useful as a temporary fix since I don't see the Tor project nor the IETF releasing Tor specs RFCs before the CAB forum's deadline is reached within four months.
Thank you,
== hk
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [DNSOP] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 05:25:25 -0400 From: Joel M. Halpern jmh@joelhalpern.com To: A. Jean Mahoney mahoney@nostrum.com, General Area Review Team gen-art@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00 The .onion Special-Use Domain Name Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 18-July-2015 IETF LC End Date: 11-August-2015 IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
Major issues: It seems to this reviewer that at least the definition of how to use these names, reference tor-rendezvous, needs to be a normative reference. It appears likely that tor-address also ought to be a normative reference.
Minor issues: It is not clear that a github reference without version identification is sufficiently stable for a normative reference from an RFC.
Nits/editorial comments:
DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
On 07/18/2015 01:33 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
We have https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#DesignDoc which points to
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/rend-spec.txt etc.
Do you think we need a new and different page?
*** Hi Wendy,
this would provide consistent and stable URIs and demonstrate goodwill to the IETF, that you're taking into account the "major" and "minor" issues <corp>, using foresight to establish a long-term paradigm towards global stability <snark>and enlightenment of all netizens <ripper>in the purity of essence of all our precious bodily fluids</ripper></snark></corp>*.
In order to make referencing Tor specifications more consistent--a pointer to a git repository is hardly seen as stable, I recommend using https://torproject.org/spec as a base URL, and to include the following anchors:
#tor-protocol #tor-directory #tor-control #tor-rendezvous #tor-path #tor-address #tor-socks-ext #tor-version
A description list could be used, e.g.:
<dl> <dt id="tor-protocol"><a href="https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt">Tor-Protocol</a><dt> <dd>This is the main specification for Tor. It describes the Tor Protocol's current implementation.</dd>
... </dl>
Then IETF working documents could use:
[Tor-Protocol]: https://torproject.org/spec#tor-protocol
etc., without the need to update any published IETF documents related to Tor even when the Tor specs have reached RFC status. Note that since RFC 7258, there seems to be a growing interest in citing Tor in IETF documents. :)
Thanks!
== hk
* I know, I know, the HTML spec doesn't allow snark elements within corp elements. Take it easy :)
On 07/18/2015 02:43 PM, hellekin wrote:
On 07/18/2015 01:33 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
We have https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#DesignDoc which points to
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/rend-spec.txt etc.
Do you think we need a new and different page?
*** Hi Wendy,
this would provide consistent and stable URIs and demonstrate goodwill to the IETF, that you're taking into account the "major" and "minor" issues <corp>, using foresight to establish a long-term paradigm towards global stability <snark>and enlightenment of all netizens <ripper>in the purity of essence of all our precious bodily fluids</ripper></snark></corp>*.
In order to make referencing Tor specifications more consistent--a pointer to a git repository is hardly seen as stable,
What if we take a versioned snapshot of the git repository -- or include the versioning hashes in the references to the git repo? The git history indicates that these files themselves are actually quite stable, we just need a way to reference these particular versions.
--Wendy
I recommend using
https://torproject.org/spec as a base URL, and to include the following anchors:
#tor-protocol #tor-directory #tor-control #tor-rendezvous #tor-path #tor-address #tor-socks-ext #tor-version
A description list could be used, e.g.:
<dl> <dt id="tor-protocol"><a href="https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt">Tor-Protocol</a><dt> <dd>This is the main specification for Tor. It describes the Tor Protocol's current implementation.</dd>
...
</dl>
Then IETF working documents could use:
etc., without the need to update any published IETF documents related to Tor even when the Tor specs have reached RFC status. Note that since RFC 7258, there seems to be a growing interest in citing Tor in IETF documents. :)
Thanks!
== hk
- I know, I know, the HTML spec doesn't allow snark elements within corp
elements. Take it easy :)
tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
On 07/18/2015 04:15 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
What if we take a versioned snapshot of the git repository -- or include the versioning hashes in the references to the git repo?
*** Well, the documents are subject to change, but the URLs should not.
Pointing https://torproject.org/spec#tor-protocol to https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt?id=7ba3a0cbc74b1... sounds fine to me.
But when it's pointing to https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc123456, it's good as well.
== hk
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Hi hellekin,
On 07/18/2015 12:22 PM, hellekin wrote:
Dear Tor developers,
would it be possible to add https://torproject.org/spec page,
We have https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#DesignDoc which points to
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/rend-spec.txt etc.
Do you think we need a new and different page?
AIUI, the idea is to have stable URLs to some documents thare are not dependant on a specific implementation of git viewer software or homepage instance.
I think that having those would be a good idea.
We have that for bugs, as https://bugs.torproject.org/nnnn - even if hardly anybody seems to have seen the light of using them. :)
If we can figure out what to name this, I can add http redirects quite easily. May it should be https://spec.torproject.org/tor-spec or something like that? I'm less convinced it needs a document served there, and I don't think it should live on www.tpo or plain tpo.
Cheers,
On 07/19/2015 02:17 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
*** This form would be best implemented as redirections to the actual documents directly in a virtualhost of the server. It seems to be less work than creating an actual HTML page and looks as good.
== hk
On 07/19/2015 01:17 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Hi hellekin,
On 07/18/2015 12:22 PM, hellekin wrote:
Dear Tor developers,
would it be possible to add https://torproject.org/spec page,
We have https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#DesignDoc which points to
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/rend-spec.txt etc.
Do you think we need a new and different page?
AIUI, the idea is to have stable URLs to some documents thare are not dependant on a specific implementation of git viewer software or homepage instance.
I think that having those would be a good idea.
We have that for bugs, as https://bugs.torproject.org/nnnn - even if hardly anybody seems to have seen the light of using them. :)
If we can figure out what to name this, I can add http redirects quite easily. May it should be https://spec.torproject.org/tor-spec or something like that? I'm less convinced it needs a document served there, and I don't think it should live on www.tpo or plain tpo.
Sounds great to me. https://spec.torproject.org/tor-spec https://spec.torproject.org/rend-spec https://spec.torproject.org/and address-spec
Perhaps we could get something more stable looking to point to https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf as well.
Thanks! --Wendy
Cheers,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Sounds great to me. https://spec.torproject.org/tor-spec https://spec.torproject.org/rend-spec https://spec.torproject.org/and address-spec
This is now a thing. https://spec.torproject.org/.
On 07/20/2015 05:10 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
This is now a thing. https://spec.torproject.org/.
*** Thank you all! That was fast.
== hk
On 07/20/2015 05:44 PM, hellekin wrote:
On 07/20/2015 05:10 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
This is now a thing. https://spec.torproject.org/.
*** Thank you all! That was fast.
In response to the review that started this thread, I think these should not be Normative References, since knowledge of the tor protocols is not necessary to the reservation of the .onion name. Having stable link pointers as we now do is helpful nonetheless.
--Wendy
-
hellekin -
Peter Palfrader -
Wendy Seltzer