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

291–300 of 559 posts

Re: .name Termination

#291

Post by bluebarbet »

jonhohle wrote: post #184

One of the reasons I stick with Big Email for my primary email is cases similar to this. If I host email and lose the domain one day, I’ve lost two factor on a thousand different services (the single factor on some). Big Email’s policy is to not reissue my address, should I lose it or die. The .name scenario is even worse. One domain gives you access to tens of thousands of users email. It seems like a privacy nightm…

Came to the same conclusion. With primary email I do not need multiple points of failure. The optimal solution is a contractual - paid - relationship with a single reputable email provider. There are a bunch of them.

Re: .name Termination

#292

Post by semiquaver »

ipython wrote: post #11

From the Verisign application [0] for this change: > 2.1. What effect, if any, will the proposed service have on the life cycle of domain names? > None. There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names. ehhh, how is that possibly true? This change ( deleting all third level names) by definition affects the lifecycle of domain names ... by terminating them! Many years ago I wrote articles bringing attent…

That document looks like the change tickets I see at work when investigating internal outages:

   Risk: none
   Rollback plan: N/A

Re: .name Termination

#293

Post by donmcronald »

arjie wrote: post #50

We were rescued from that dot org scam by the fact that ICANN is a California non profit. I wonder if the AG can lean on them again. This is an outrageous thing to do.

> ICANN is a California non profit

I wonder how long that'll last. If the regulators in Califonrnia keep forcing them to act in the public's interest, won't they just move to a more favorable jurisdiction?

Re: .name Termination

#294

Post by zamadatix »

aliasxneo wrote: post #218
xur17 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a brief explanation of what DNTLS is that you could post here?

Sure, happy to put something here as a comment. Alice registers `alice.dntls` and Bob registers `bob.dntls` on the DNTLS network. During the registration process, they generate PQ key pairs that are registered along with the name. Alice's and Bob's name are hashed before being stored on the network. Bob knows Alice's name, so he can perform the necessary hash computation to look up Alice's public key material on the…

The technical implementation aside, "what" prevents this from going down the exact same path as ICANN? E.g. how do we know next year the registration fees won't be 5x or certain registrations denied?

Re: .name Termination

#295

Post by zamadatix »

swiftcoder wrote: post #67
jawns wrote: post #48

Surely the author must have anticipated some heightened level of risk in pegging important parts of his personal and business life on a nonstandard TLD like this. It's a pretty bizarre exception to the normal, intuitive ways that domains work. I'll admit that it's a crappy situation and I would be frustrated in his place. But if I were in his place, I probably would have also thought it prudent to have a backup plan.

> nonstandard TLD What exactly is non-standard about an ICANN-approved TLD? Yes, the multi-level structure is a little odd, but given that ICANN approved it in the first place, one has a reasonable expectation that they would work as advertised.

Non-standard as in "it's not up to my usual standards" not "is not part of a technical standard". I.e. it's a gTLD rather than a "standard" (in the previous sense) TLD.

Re: .name Termination

#296

Post by Pxtl »

avarun wrote: post #255
Pxtl wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside: I'm honestly bewildered that Google doesn't have the ability to handle that in gmail accounts. If somebody gets married or otherwise needs to change their name, their answer is "just make a new google account" when all your stuff is still tied to the old account.

They rolled this out in March this year in the US (and December last year in India). I've successfully renamed an old account with an email address I no longer liked. It works quite well on everything 1st party, but does have the potential of causing issues with OAuth on poorly-coded websites that key on email instead of user ID (ie. most of them). You do get to keep your old email address though, so it still ends up…

Holy crap really? Yay! I know a couple of trans folks that will be ecstatic.

Re: .name Termination

#297

Post by nanolith »

This risk factor is similar to one I brought up during architectural review of an IoT company I helped to build. It's why the identity certificates our devices used were entirely disconnected from domain names, and why the discovery protocol I put together did not rely on registered domains, but could use these as an untrusted part of discovery.

Domain names are leased. Things that are leased can disappear. The company leasing these assets could go bankrupt. They could weasel their way out of agreements as Verisign has done here. Any identity that is grounded in leased assets is built on shaky ground. It's also why I'm dubious of the way that e-mail addresses have become tied to online identity.

I'm not saying that what Verisign has done is right, but this behavior is expected. Those of us who went through the (dot) bomb era remember just how shaky this infrastructure can be.

I'm sorry that .name people are going through this. Even though it's a risk I expected, that doesn't make this okay.

Re: .name Termination

#298

Post by aliasxneo »

zamadatix wrote: post #294
aliasxneo wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, happy to put something here as a comment. Alice registers `alice.dntls` and Bob registers `bob.dntls` on the DNTLS network. During the registration process, they generate PQ key pairs that are registered along with the name. Alice's and Bob's name are hashed before being stored on the network. Bob knows Alice's name, so he can perform the necessary hash computation to look up Alice's public key material on the…

The technical implementation aside, "what" prevents this from going down the exact same path as ICANN? E.g. how do we know next year the registration fees won't be 5x or certain registrations denied?

A good question. Unfortunately, all I can say is we have a solution that involves specific European countries, laws, and regulations. As I said in a previous comment, happy to share more outside of this venue, but not all details are 100% public at this point.

Re: .name Termination

#299

Post by jonhohle »

ethanhawksley wrote: post #278
wiether wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're talking about Google or Microsoft, putting more trust in the worst tech companies than in the TLD of your country seems crazy to me.

I think it's pretty reasonable. The percentage of email accounts Google & Microsoft terminate seems far far lower than the chance I misconfigure my email or lose my domain

I was talking about one of those. Specifically they have a policy of not reissuing email addresses. Once it’s registered it’s burned. If they were to reverse that policy, the sky would fall.

Re: .name Termination

#300

Post by layer8 »

toast0 wrote: post #284
layer8 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, they can’t outright prevent the ambiguity, but much fewer people will go to the trouble of establishing such subdomains when the option isn’t directly offered by the registrar. This is my theory because, a priori, 3LDs should be more profitable than 2LDs, because with 3LDs John Doe and Jane Doe don’t have to compete over doe.name , but instead can each separately purchase john.doe.name and jane.doe.name . Appar…

> This is my theory because, a priori, 3LDs should be more profitable than 2LDs, 3LDs are less valuable. In a market of many different tlds, why register foo.bar.name when you could get foobar.name or foobar.something_else

Because your name is John Doe and not JohnDoe.
Post reply on HN