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

301–310 of 559 posts

Re: .name Termination

#301

Post by toast0 »

amluto wrote: post #162
lxgr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An “administrative structure” seems fine, but the fact that a subdomain gets any sort of privilege over the parent has always seemed absurd to me. Surely a better solution would involve an actual request. login.foo.com could send a request to foo.com with Origin: login.foo.com asking to set a cookie, and foo.com could make its own decision.

That might be reasonable today, but it's not really reasonable at the time the policies were formed.

If you require domain wide cookies be set from a webserver on the domain apex, the domain apex (for high volume destinations) needs to be set up for high volume webserving. High volume webserving often means at least geotargetted DNS, maybe a CDN, often anycast in today's reality.

Back in the day, it was common for high traffic domains to run their DNS with a normal DNS server and then delegate (typically via CNAME) high volume subdomains off to a 3rd party DNS server for geotargetting (usually Akamai DNS, but there were others). But you can't CNAME the apex domain away. You'd have to delegate the whole domain to your DNS provider and then you have no way to manage an outage of your fancy DNS provider. Especially if you go back to the days where NetworkSolutions did a single daily zone update for .com ... if you wanted to switch to a new DNS provider for your domain, you would submit the change request and hope it happened in the 24 hours, but sometimes you'd miss the window (or there would be some process error) and it would happen much later.

Less of a problem in today's world, where registries typically update the glue records in near real time (although many TLD servers have a 2 day TTL for glue, so you can't switch off a dead provider very quickly) and lots of domains seem comfortable with delegating the whole thing to their CDN.

Re: .name Termination

#302

Post by donmcronald »

politician wrote: post #98
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…

"Well, it doesn't affect the lifecycle of domain names. The lifecycle is defined in some RFC somewhere, and this change doesn't modify that. Now, these particular domain name instances might be adversely affected, but you didn't ask about that." -- lawyers, probably.

You're closer than you think. Big companies and institutions just change the definition of words they don't like. In this case, they could argue that a domain's lifecycle is registration, renewal (optional), deletion. Deletion is part of the expected lifecycle, so this doesn't change it.

The ambiguity is a feature so they can do whatever they want. We all know it's bullshit, but it gives the parties involved the ability to disenfranchise one group to benefit another while claiming they're following the rules.

Re: .name Termination

#303

Post by 1970-01-01 »

Macha wrote: post #195
1970-01-01 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the correct problem. The 3rd level domain is going away, which can be reconqured via OpenNIC and mass re-adoption. There will surely be new problems, but owning will not be among those problems.

The problem is everyone else (such as email providers...) recognising your ownership.

That's why you form leverage with 22k others that are in the same boat as you. The root with the users is the root that becomes trusted, which then becomes the root that resolves. Rolling-over and allowing ICANN to quietly get away with this is exactly what they want.

Re: .name Termination

#304

Post by cpach »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #166
QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the posted link talks about .uk.co, which currently does not exist but I guess may have in the past. Where .co is the ccTLD of Colombia. Different from .co.uk.

Originally there was uk.co.orgname.

Huh? I don’t follow.

Re: .name Termination

#305

Post by donmcronald »

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'd rather trust myself.

If you walk around all day with your wallet in your pocket, it might fall out and you'll lose it. Would you like me to hold onto it for you to make sure that doesn't happen?

Re: .name Termination

#306

Post by [deleted] »

traceroute66 wrote: post #110
orra wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owns the .co part of .co.uk. If you buy foo.co.uk, that is registered with Nominet, who are the registry for .uk.

> Nobody owns the .co part of .co.uk. If you buy foo.co.uk, that is registered with Nominet, who are the registry for .uk. Yup. The original statement was dangerous FUD which should be urgently corrected.

[deleted]

Re: .name Termination

#307

Post by swiftcoder »

jawns wrote: post #179
angoragoats wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand. How is registering first.last.name not also selecting one name ("first") that precedes last.name, similar to how you register one name that precedes .com? (And yes, I am aware that you can also register last.name by itself, but only if there are no third-level domains using it, so for practical purposes it doesn't change my question above. Plus, when the OP originally purchased his domain,…

Present these two domain names to the average person: 1) benedict.cumberbatch.name 2) drstrange.co.uk I expect the average person would assume that for the domain 1, .name is the TLD, cumberbatch.name is registered by a private entity, and benedict (and any other subdomains associated with cumberbatch.name) is a subdomain fully controlled by that private entity. Whereas for domain 2, I think the average person will v…

Luckily the average person has no idea what a TLD or a subdomain are

Re: .name Termination

#308

Post by QuantumNomad_ »

cpach wrote: post #304
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originally there was uk.co.orgname.

Huh? I don’t follow.

They might be referring to this kind of thing:

> The first appearance of reversed DNS strings predated the Internet domain name standards. The UK Joint Academic Networking Team (JANET) used this order in its Name Registration Scheme, before the Internet domain name standard was established. For example, the name `uk.ac.bris.pys.as` was interpreted as a host named `as` within the UK (top level domain .uk)

from the History section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_domain_name_notation

But I don’t know if uk.co.somethingsomething did or did not exist at that time. Or if it was only introduced after the Internet domain name standards we use today existed and so was .co.uk from the beginning.

Re: .name Termination

#309

Post by swiftcoder »

avazhi wrote: post #121
swiftcoder wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> What exactly is non-standard about an ICANN-approved TLD? Uh, 99% of people would assume a .name address is a scam. Hate to break it to you.

I mean, we could say much the same of any other non-country TLD, and probably half the country TLDs. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t expect it to be administered responsibly

Re: .name Termination

#310

Post by jacobgkau »

econ wrote: post #223

I don't like the way domains work in general. It's really quite expensive if you are wise enough to buy everything that looks to much like your website. Did buy https://ycombinator.us Didn't buy https://ycombinator.co.uk https://ycombinator.de What useful functionality is there in selling these domains? Expiring domains is bad for the web and selling them to someone else is as terrible as the article makes it out to…

> Expiring domains is bad for the web

Short-term, it might seem like it would make sense for domain registrations to be permanent, but long-term, it introduces at least two insurmountable problems:

1. Unless some other cleanup mechanism is in place, eventually (like, hundreds of years into the future) domains will need to get longer and longer as people who owned old ones disappear and new people need new ones.

2. The infrastructure costs (while nominal) to keep existing domains functioning would not be sustainable in perpetuity without relying on the assumption of more and more domains always being sold.

Post reply on HN