Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.name Termination

neil.fraser.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 559 posts

Re: .name Termination

#141

Post by lxgr »

rwmj wrote: post #116
nneonneo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since neither smith.name nor the wildcard *.name appear in the Public Suffix List ( https://publicsuffix.org/ ), browsers would likely allow any page on a *.smith.name domain to set cookies for .smith.name. There was an effort to properly handle the .name 2LDs, but it was never resolved because there’s no easy way to tell a reserved 2LD (open for 3LD registrations only) apart from a normal 2LD on .name: https://githu…

I think this says more about how the cookies security model is stupid. They should always have been scoped to the single, exact name they were set from and nothing else. Websites would have had to be designed a bit more thoughtfully.

It’s not nearly just cookies, and I think interpreting domain hierarchies as administrative structure generally does make sense.

Maybe it could be opt-in or opt-out via some markers at the DNS level, though? The public suffix list having to exist at all is bizarre.

Re: .name Termination

#142

Post by yreg »

traceroute66 wrote: post #108
stronglikedan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

geez, dude, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...

> geez, dude, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning... 5 seconds on wikipedia or google would have stopped them spreading completely dangerous FUD about .co.uk.

What's so dangerous about it?

Re: .name Termination

#143

Post by marcosdumay »

adw wrote: post #138
eloisant wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Japan does the same with .co.jp but also .ne.jp, ac.jp, etc.

There are many examples; k12. .us is another.

It is (or was for a long time, IDK) a strongly recommended practice from ICANN. I imagine nearly all countries to do that.

Re: .name Termination

#144

Post by aliasxneo »

delfinom wrote: post #137
aliasxneo wrote: post #132

This is why I am building DNTLS. These organizations no longer deserve our trust and they have inadvertently gained too much power over the last two decades of massive internet expansion. Names need to be fully owned by individuals and a shared, decentralized trust system must be in place for resolution. The more I see actions like this, the more convinced I am that a solution is long overdue.

There is already ENS.

The adoption has basically been non-existent. I have a lot of theories on where they've gone wrong. Being so heavily tied to a blockchain (Ethereum being the worst due to its state bloat) is probably the biggest mistake I think they made.

Re: .name Termination

#145

Post by Aachen »

buzzy_hacker wrote: post #37
ipython wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you've already had 10 months to come up with some name ideas. It's not like it's a huge surprise when it happens. You could even register the names before they're born.

I registered a domain name for my son the day he was born... whois firstlast.com | grep 'Creation Date' shows his birthday, which I found amusing!

GDPR would like to have a word with you! :D Nah seriously though, that's awesome.

Re: .name Termination

#146

Post by notahacker »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #109

Instead of giving up, why can't all 22k .name owners move on to OpenNIC? They will not say no, you can't have that.

The ability to register fraser.geek so a very small number of OpenNIC users can access that new URL doesn't really solve the OP's problem with his family's long-established URLs disappearing and their emails being directed to whichever scammer buys up the fraser.name domain.

Re: .name Termination

#148

Post by londons_explore »

Pxtl wrote: post #100
omnibrain wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 20 year ago I registered {lastname}.name and have dozens third level domains below it. So there are "privately owned" second level domains under .name for quite some time...

I'm working on same for my family since I want to properly degoogle a bit. One thing I think long term - if I give my kids first-name @ last name , that means that I forever hold power over their email. Which isn't great. But what's the alternative? Register one full domain name per kid? Even ignoring the cost, the ergonomics are awful. Imho email is missing a feature for nameless email addresses for when somebody ju…

A child born today sees email like we see the telegraph...

they'll grumpily sign up to gmail just so they can get a verification email, and that'll be all it gets used for. Messaging their irl friends will be done in apps like Discord.

Re: .name Termination

#149

Post by markhahn »

nneonneo wrote: post #49
akersten wrote: post #25

It kind of seems like an insane TLD structure to begin with, right? I always thought .co.uk was bad (you're just pinning yourself to whoever owns the .co. part, but at least browsers have some suffix list where you can't, I don't know, hijack some login cookie for all of .co.). Joe Smith and John Smith can independently register joe.smith.name and john.smith.name, do browsers have a wildcard suffix list for the 2nd l…

Since neither smith.name nor the wildcard *.name appear in the Public Suffix List ( https://publicsuffix.org/ ), browsers would likely allow any page on a *.smith.name domain to set cookies for .smith.name. There was an effort to properly handle the .name 2LDs, but it was never resolved because there’s no easy way to tell a reserved 2LD (open for 3LD registrations only) apart from a normal 2LD on .name: https://githu…

I'm always mystified why we haven't leveraged DNS.

I mean: why not have cookie policy set by a flag in DNS? Not unlike DKIM or even SSHFP.

Of course, we wouldn't need the entire certificate industry if we simply looked up a site's PK along with its DNS record...

Re: .name Termination

#150

Post by kennywinker »

Pxtl wrote: post #100
omnibrain wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 20 year ago I registered {lastname}.name and have dozens third level domains below it. So there are "privately owned" second level domains under .name for quite some time...

I'm working on same for my family since I want to properly degoogle a bit. One thing I think long term - if I give my kids first-name @ last name , that means that I forever hold power over their email. Which isn't great. But what's the alternative? Register one full domain name per kid? Even ignoring the cost, the ergonomics are awful. Imho email is missing a feature for nameless email addresses for when somebody ju…

Not to mention some of those kids may end up changing their names at some point if they get married and decide to take their partner’s last name.
Post reply on HN