Viewing profile — schanzen

Presentation given at IETF 118: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-11...

Co-author here. If you look into the R5N paper (link in draft), you can find this term. If you assume a routing performance of O(log n) and O(sqrt (n)) number of lookups to find th…

Our recent webinar shows the state of GNS, and addresses some recurring questions regarding governance, how name registration is supposed to work and the RFC.

This is correct. I would like to add that the ISE also had us engage with a variety of stakeholders within the IETF (dnsop, for example, as part of discussions on RFC 9476) and als…

These are all valid deployment questions, which we tried to address in Appendix A. In a nutshell, we expect that resolvers would ship with a (large) set of default "suffix-to-zone"…

Indeed that would work. In theory. Especially since we thought of that use case (delegation into DNS) with the GNS2DNS record type. There is a BUT: You need an initial label for IC…

We are currently working on mirroring some DNS TLDs: https://www.gnunet.org/en/news/2022-11-NGI-Entrust-GNS-TLDs.... I have been a bit preoccupied with the RFC and other stuff rece…

Basically that means you have an issue with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9476.html , not GNS. GNS, in theory, could replace DNS (the technology) and reuse its current root gov…

We use this SU-TLD in our GNS draft which is also already in the editor queue: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schanzen-gns/

This is really nice information. Thank you! FWIW we have recently acquired funding to demonstrate that GNS can handle large size zones by migrating TLD zones (available through AXF…

For our transitive use of petnames in name systems see also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schanzen-gns/ and https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html

Yes. And it is totally possible that a "common" and default use case with GNS looks just like DNS. The spec just does not mandate the governance. In fact, it mandates implementatio…

It is important to distinguish the technical procedure of resolving a name with the namespace governance. You could imagine a system where you manage your DNS root zone locally ("h…

You can. Either using nsswitch plugins or a local DNS service that resolved the names in GNS. But, browsers are delicate when it comes to TLS certificates, for example. See also ht…

There are a lot of stakeholders involved and a lot of applications relying on DNS may have problems (browsers). So the migration path is long and winded I guess. Other than that, n…

Theoretically, you could combine a blockchain-based root zone governance (e.g. Handshake) with GNS. This would give you globally unique names and efficient and private delegated na…

From a technical perspective this is possible, I think. But it would mean one of two things: 1. Your implementation/OSes default configuration is messed up. 2. You accidentally mes…

Well compelling the TLD owner (in this case .com) through the courts to change the delegation to your zone also works in GNS. (You would not force some kind of "hand over" of the e…

No, we chose the petname/SDSI solution to the problem: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schanzen-gns-19.html#n...

Yes, and you could apply the DNS governance model to GNS. For example: Let's say GNS gets traction. Users and implementation could provide a list of start zone mappings which are m…

6) In the spec we clarify: "While DNS is distributed, in practice it relies on centralized, trusted registrars to provide globally unique names. As the awareness of the central rol…

Actually, GNS does solve this partially: If there is a squatter for, e.g. example.com, and this is a troll preventing Example Co from claiming their "name", they could just lobby/a…

This sentence is usually added for specifications which are submitted independently to the Independent Stream Editor, as opposed to drafts which are discussed in a WG at IETF.