-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 05/15/2015 08:28 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote: > Hi, > *** Thank you for this report. I hope to read the minutes soon.
* I note that you omitted to mention Namecoin and the .BIT pTLD. * You wrote, referring to overlay networks: "Their reluctance to use the DNS for name resolution is possibly due to its unencrypted public leaking of name searches." Even if that could be a relevant argument for privacy, the technical ground is way simpler than that, as introduced in the P2PNames draft: the DNS is hierarchical, and these systems are peer-to-peer, and use peer-to-peer mechanisms to manage, "delegate", and resolve domains. It would be like saying an electric car has reluctance using gasoline possibly due to its liquid form. P2P overlay networks are different in nature, they rely on algorithms to ensure the attribution and resolution of names can be automated and never conflict in the global namespace they use. They achieve this without administrative decisions, but solely on the basis of cryptographic integrity. * You wrote: "DNSOP wishes to make claims individually, rather than in bulk. Thus, the grothoff draft is rejected (or at least unprioritised) on this basis" Was that discussed during the interim meeting? I have an objection to this form: although it makes sense to consider domain names for reservation on an individual basis, there are at least two sound technical reasons in favor of registering more than one domain at a time : 1) proximity of specifications (e.g., .onion, .zkey, and .b32.i2p are all self-authenticating cryptographic hashes of the destination service) , 2) complementarity of names (in order to break past the limitations described by the Zooko Triangle, .gnu and .zkey are complementary; the Tor Project uses .onion for resolution, and .exit for tunneling to specific exit nodes) The latter means that if one domain is reserved and the other not, the system is dicey. This point is particularly important because it will influence the next step for P2PNames. As I mentioned already the plan to move on is to turn the P2PNames draft into an informal RFC and extract the domain reservation bits to respective drafts. Although I disagree that P2P overlay networks should be considered separately, I even more disagree that they should not be considered as whole systems. Thus the most obvious split we consider is to do one draft per system, which happens to be a single domain just for one (Namecoin). I'm all ears, thank you for your continued attention, == hk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVVgEeXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg93hYP/1B9Az5mlP+l2cpsgYx1mO1q K3Arv0pPKH0pBDeD4E2dXAmTHf5fIMBklLrloK7LSs2HFc8Wc0as1fLhqjtv8nvg S3urt5tF2dPfhtfTnKPBmIxOw3DvGsAau1BJQjRcVU78eVDt1Qu7HEGrr819oSbS awGFB3dka0WjdjmFVcfWDDaGlr50MSoKc30mGo6JwtP7a4+BCUbLa7PgguCoIGlQ rBlwkQ/TdF0FMdJKA2gj79jJhKe+fPPWJsIPZbiomGRdKRNlgmKMSvT7XsheVUtZ b97ukR83wh0W5nj96njD3XNbUSWcdtMayB825zhCFyUTRtAlHH9CY5NsXy6IdfCO n0Nr9vo2iVnOnQ6JWre8FByYtCVxz3XwKn4Gl040WcaWtayjm9VErel2GSjq2yPe x8WMEQhzgX1HdFvrEsXR2QiFrW2X9WOpwJKWstD/UED4oqzh55RKXI4+/OAkkMby 9gvCscJap3Wcn/190nS+MDGimiIyzc4RWC1Eg5k0wyTy7jBWPqpragEMudwlJb0Q lbM7Qb5VpPIb2/JpEcQSm0hgwu1vemnBpztKOgQcuawuh5fu2SqJ1POMIPkKEEXW H4E3RRo6tTi9LYeb7C/9okoFoHMjdmydO0vvNpC1cupSSywzy40U24MRk23OKp/Z LdO+17iVjiDltnK8HEyT =3A44 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
