Skip to main content
  • Time to update the Network Time Protocol

    The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a foundational Internet standard that has provided clock synchronization between computer systems since the early 1980s. It was first standardized as RFC 958 in Sept 1984 with several revisions in the following years. Discussions have been ongoing in the NTP working group for a few years now about updating NTPv4 to NTPv5. This update is motivated by lessons learned, ongoing vulnerabilities, and emerging use cases.

    • Karen O'DonoghueNTP Working Group Chair
    • Dieter SieboldNTP Working Group Chair
    30 Sep 2022
  • Report from IAB workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021 published

    The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has published the official report from the workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021.

      28 Sep 2022
    • Applied Networking Research Prize presentations at IETF 115

      The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) open session at the IETF 115 meeting will feature presentations on research into domain hijacking, the IETF's organizational culture, and DDoS attack detection and mitigation.

        27 Sep 2022
      • Supporting diversity and inclusion at IETF meetings by providing childcare

        Thanks to the generous support of IETF Diversity & Inclusion sponsors, onsite childcare at an IETF meeting was provided for the first time ever during IETF 114. The successful experience and continued support of sponsors means it will again be offered at the IETF 115 meeting on 5-11 November 2022.

          14 Sep 2022
        • IETF Annual Report 2021

          The IETF Annual Report 2021 provides a summary of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and RFC Editor community activities from last year.

            9 Sep 2022

          Filter by topic and date

          Filter by topic and date

          .onion

          • Jari ArkkoIETF Chair

          10 Sep 2015

          The IETF community approved document using the Special-Use Domain Names registry established by RFC 6761 to register ‘.onion’ as a special-use name.

          .onion image

          As part of the IETF standards process, our steering group (IESG) recently approved ‘The .onion Special-Use Domain Name’ (draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-01.txt) as a Proposed Standard. Because this might garner attention beyond the usual standard actions, I wanted to briefly summarize some points of the process to date, and share an outcome of the IESG’s discussion that suggests possible future IETF work.

          As the technical summary that accompanied the announcement to the IETF community indicated, the approved document uses the Special-Use Domain Names registry established by RFC 6761 to register ‘.onion’ as a special-use name. In effect, ‘.onion’ will be treated in the same way .local, .localhost, and .example have been dealt with previously—that is, outside the global Domain Name System (DNS). Adding .onion to the Special-Use Domain Names registry will also enable hosts on the Tor network to obtain validated SSL certificates.

          The registry and the process defined in RFC 6761 for updating it are based in IETF’s responsibility for the DNS standard, and for promoting interoperability among Internet protocols. The reservation followed established IETF processes for open participation and discussion. There is no IETF specification about Tor, but the registration relates to its interaction with DNS.

          The approved document is a product of the IETF DNSOP Working Group. Some contention arose during the processing of the document in the working group. There also was some discussion about needing to clarify or adjust RFC 6761 before making any additions.

          During its discussions, the IESG considered the existing broad deployment and the potential security impact of not registering .onion as a special name to be important factors. For example, Certificate Authorities (CAs) might stop issuing certificates for .onion names, compromising some users’ ability to use software implementing the Tor protocols. Most importantly, the registration does meet the criteria in RFC 6761 which is our current process.

          However, subsequent to this action, the IESG believes RFC 6761 needs action, and substantial community input. It needs to be open for review and modification because the current process is unscalable. Several other names had also been submitted for consideration as special names, and the RFC may not give adequate guidance about how when names should be identified as special names. Special names should also be, as the name implies – special and rare. The DNSOP working group is chartered to address this RFC 6761 review.


          Share this page