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

441–450 of 562 posts

Re: .name Termination

#441

Post by necovek »

traceroute66 wrote: post #152
yreg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so dangerous about it?

> What's so dangerous about it? Implying lack of trust in `co.uk` Implying `co.uk` may suffer the same fate at `.name` Complete FUD.

Actually, the fact that you have to cite official registrar docs is exactly the problem. There are 200+ country TLDs, and by now probably thousands of other self-governed TLDs like .name.

For instance, in Serbia, there is a similar scheme to UK: .gov.rs, .co.rs, edu.rs, but also in.rs (for individuals) and top-level .rs. So someone has registered "iz.rs" and offers free subdomains to individuals.

The fact that there is implied hierarchical trust is what the problem is, and keeping track of individual rules for each TLD is prone to errors.

Re: .name Termination

#442

Post by ndom91 »

strenholme wrote: post #407
greyface- wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn’t how things are done these days The old locality domains still exist, and in many localities you can still register them today by the same "email a request to some sysadmin" process. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48122635 Your beach.santa-cruz.ca.us domain is still in DNS, just with a broken delegation chain. You could reclaim it right now by setting up a nameserver at reality.samiam.org.

I’m amazed beach.santa-cruz.ca.us is still around. I’ve given it some SSL certs and have reclaimed it: https://beach.santa-cruz.ca.us/ Thanks for checking the zone files of the parent domain to verify it’s still there.

Wait what haha. Do you also own samiam.org?

Re: .name Termination

#443

Post by Nition »

wormius wrote: post #167
dvt wrote: post #158

I freaked out for a second because I've owned `dvt.name` for like 15 years. `.name` is not getting terminated, so it's important to be precise here. The third-level x.y.name (where you're the `x`) is getting terminated, and the respective `y.name` domains are going to be released. Still a crappy thing for people, but it does not affect owned second-level domains.

There should be a conflict resolution to gracefully degrade the third level to 2nd level when there is no competing name on the second level. But I didn't think about the 1st level competitors. There'd still need a mechanism to resolve that... 1. First come first serve? (e.g. whoever registered a y.name first, whether x is bob or sue is determined by the earliest registrant on record) 2. Lottery/random selection? 3.…

fraser.name does not seem to be currently registered, so it seems they could automatically give him that name, and hence solve the problem entirely.

But I wonder if there might be some competing names on the third level? Like, he's neil.fraser.name, but what if there's also bob.fraser.name and they'd both very much like to keep their domains?

Re: .name Termination

#444

Post by OtomotO »

Holy f*ck... you had me there for a moment. I thought they would end the top level .name domain.

Everything business related runs over such a domain.

So I totally get you! It's like someone pulled the ruck from under your feet.

Re: .name Termination

#445

Post by dbdr »

aliasxneo wrote: post #144
delfinom wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not convinced the reason is technical. Yes, the total Ethereum chain state is not tiny (a few TB I think). But if you're only interesting in ENS domains, you don't need to store all of Ethereum, you can just receive new blocks, filter the relevant domain change events and only index that.

I suspect the lack adoption might rather be because of:

- DNS being "good enough". Rug pulls as described in this article are sadly possible, but not frequent enough to motivate enough actors to work on the switch

- The stigma attached to crypto. Which is understandable given the number of bad actors trying to make easy bucks with false promises. But it's also a shame, given that this actually seems a perfect use case: the code is simple enough, and as far as I know, only a blockchain can guarantee a specific code will be executed without relying on a third party being and staying honest (in others words, true self-custody of a domain name).

Re: .name Termination

#446

Post by account42 »

jaggederest wrote: post #370
p4bl0 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing that should be obvious and yet they refuse to do: when there is a single third-level customer for a given second-level, offer them a way to get the second level domain. I've been asking VeriSign this for 15+ years, they always said no, even if at some point they confirmed that there were no other third-level than mine under that second-level domain. They're insane and should not be in charge.

> They're insane and should not be in charge. I remember back when we had to write mechanize scripts to drive a browser through the renewal process, because if you had dozens, hundreds, or thousands of domains there was no nonmanual way, especially if you wanted extended verification or something silly like that. So what I'm saying is, agreed and that has always been true.

That actually sounds like a good thing. Why are you hording hundreds or thousands of domains?

Re: .name Termination

#447

Post by omnibrain »

kennywinker wrote: post #150
Pxtl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Funnily I did exactly this, so the {lastname}.name is now legacy for me and nobody else of my family ever picked up the offer to have {firstname}@{lastname}.name adresses anyway. Later (but before my name change) I managed to secure {lastname}.de which I stupidly missed during the early internet due to being a stupid teenager with stupid convictions. If I had secured this back in the day I think they would happily started using it but now they are all too settled in their provider/free webmail addresses.

Nice twist: The father of my wife owned {newlastname}.de since the dawn of the internet. So I'm still fine on that front. ;)

Re: .name Termination

#448

Post by account42 »

asdfsa32 wrote: post #438
gblargg wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems insane because it seems like a big point was to have a permanent site for your name. This just devalues all domain names, showing that they can do a rug-pull at any time because they don't want to manage it (how about turn it over to a private company that can adjust costs so they can make a profit and keep it running?).

This is why new gTLDs are insane and stupid. It is about time there is some _yours for life_ DNS system. In this age, allowing domain names to be owned by other entities is almost like allowing a company business registration number or one's national id card number to be transferred to others. I think name squatting is a problem, but it is not like that current system has solved it.

Squatting is purely a result of being able to resell domains.

Re: .name Termination

#450

Post by bentinata »

febusravenga wrote: post #71
decimalenough wrote: post #52

I've had a .name domain forever and I had no idea first.last.name was even a thing, meaning that it was possible to register this without owning last.name. That said, my domain is simply unusual.name, and everybody in my family has email addresses in the form first@unusual.name. So this is a no-op for me, and I gather www.unusual.name will also continue to work, since I own the 2nd level outright.

This is silly question, but is your family managing trust in you as lone guy - cousin, father, brother - having potentially access to all their emails? I feel that I more trust some corpo (Google, etc) that one particular person. I don't imagine setup where you can effictevely guarantee them full privacy.

It should be the other way around, really. We should trust our family and community more.
Post reply on HN