On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:20:27PM +0900, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote a message of 73 lines which said:
> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00 raises several issues, And I forgot one of the most important ones, but I remembered it during a discussion over sashimi this evening (the sashimi were good, thanks). The entire section 2, about "switches" is questionable because using .bit or .onion is not only to change the *resolution* protocol but also (and specially) to change the *registration* process. These are two different systems. Of course, they have some links (the fact that domain names are organized into a tree is used by the DNS protocol for fast resolution) but not identical. The current version of the draft says "any TLD registered in IANA-maintained root-zone (use DNS)" which is not quite exact. Names registered in the RFC2826-root are often looked up through the DNS but not always (some people use local hosts file or LDAP to do it). And, more important, some TLDs outside of the RFC2826-root do not always indicate a switch. This is the case of .bit (if you already know Namecoin, you can skip the next paragraph). Namecoin uses a blockchain to store registered names. That way, you can have meaningful names without a registry. Because few clients speak the Namecoin API, most of the times, name resolution is done through the DNS: you set up a local authoritative name server to export data from the blockchain into a .bit zone that you load. This example clearly shows that the TLD is not a "protocol switch". That's because Namecoin is intended to address perceived problems with the registration system, not with the DNS. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
