On 2/15/19 9:46 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> This technically also allows one to separate the two DNS zones more
> clearly (and could even be managed by a different group)
>
> I'm really on the fence for this document. On the one hand, it is good
> to have a memorable decentralized identifier, but on the other hand if
> you rely on DNS (and DNSSEC), is this identifier really still
> decentralised in the "we don't trust the USG or Verisign" way ?
I think the question of whether or not to provide
decentralized identifiers and whether or not this proposal
delivers on the "decentralized" claim is out of our hands,
as the core spec (which has a lot of additional problems)
comes out of the W3C. I think the IETF's involvement is
probably limited to their use of DNS in the resolution
process.
Melinda
p.s. and it's probably worth pointing out that this work is
being done in a W3C community group, so until it looks like
it's actually going to be published as a WC3 spec I'm not
sure I'd like to see IETF working group resources being
spent on this.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
PGP key fingerprint 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
