[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-gnunet] GNS future

From: Alexandre Garreau
Subject: Re: [Help-gnunet] GNS future
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:01:09 +0100
User-agent: Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.11) of 2017-09-15, modified by Debian

On 2019-01-28 at 18:41, Christian Grothoff wrote:

On 1/28/19 12:17 PM, Alexandre Garreau wrote:

What about graph- rather than tree(hierarchy)-based reference system? for instance if I want,,, to point to the same thing, how might that be used (I had difficulty formulating this question since the first time I learnt about GNS, in 2013)? Would there be some anti-redundance system to ensure for instance and point to the same thing (because otherwise keeping the distinction between and might be a problem)?

Why shouldn't you be able to point and to exactly the same zone? Many companies do effectively this with all of their entries. GNS is graph-based, not tree-based, you can have cycles and whatever else, and there is no unique root (other than what might be common consensus / default settings). So maybe I'm not understanding the question ;-)

Yes it is. Yet two things: I feel like most companies (at least it’s the case for France), instead of making DNS entries synonymous, decide one is “principal”, and make all the others —which seem to be here only to prevent cybersquatting— redirect on it.

The biggest, second thing: having a .fr won’t automatically give you a .eu, nor having a give you a, and I find this unergonomic and confusing. It would be really cool to have some coordination among TLDs to make this possible.

But since it makes more money —as I guess ICANN and some registrars don’t necessarily yet make subsequently more money with CAs and DNSSEC— to ask each company to pay for each name separately, and to make cybersquatting a competition-based problem in which you must invest against risk, rather than applying real concrete solutions that work for everybody, maybe that couldn’t currently happen.

Which makes me think to something else I forgot to mention: currently naming is only FCFS and company/state-ruled, and inconsistently (sometimes even weakly) enforced against certains semantics. .net is no longer for ISPs (or anything more broadly network related), .com is no longer purely commercial, etc. for .org, .info… not talking of poor gTLD shared only for puns or cheap names. Lot of stuff is not enforced.

Some are and it is great the companies behind work on it. But if current TLD integrate directly into GNS, will there be something more simple, long and in the end complicated (like the fr.afnic.gnu and afnic.icann.gnu I saw), or more complex: would there be a way to make users participate in enforcing naming semantics (for instance by deciding .eu is EURID thing, and then users can override it, as well as for most geographic and generic TLD), so that to make override these common TLD so to make these substitutions/synonyms possible (or maybe at least only for undefined names)? or use some sort of substitution lists? that could be shared? with one that would make the main gTLD synonyms (for geographical inclusion, such as .fr in .eu, etc.) and generic ones (so that the order becomes irrelevant and is a synonym for

Maybe even one day something will be able to hook in a registrar and alternatively buy these cheaper automatically…

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]