I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to other TLD's.
-Grant On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rube...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Jay Ashworth" <j...@baylink.com> > > > >> Subject: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD > > > > I see that LWN has already spotted this; smb will no doubt be pleased to > > know that the very first reply suggests that RFC 3514 solves the problem > > much more easily. > > In the domain business we don't need a new RFC to know that everything > that is evil will end in .evil, and everything else is not evil. No > need to define a new bitmask field. > > > Rubens > >
