[flagged]
There is nothing "toxic" about Stallman or GNU.
RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#12I have mixed feelings. A unitary root of naming and the dns is a huge value proposition to walk away from. Fitting gnu names under .alt is only partly ameliorative.
I see it exactly the opposite way.
Over time the unitary root of naming has attracted increasing levels of censorship, tracking, abusive seziure, and oppression.
The dream of a worldwide namespace has become a nightmare. Let's wake up.
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#13A distributed naming system intended to work with mesh networks like GNUnet. GNS does not support names which are simultaneously global, secure and human-readable. Instead, names are either global and not human-readable or not globally unique and human-readable. In GNS, each user manages their own zones and can delegate subdomains to zones managed by other users. For example, ICANN could just create 'DNS zone' that w…
Or, I guess, "someone" could apply for a custom gTLD and link it. Of course, that "someone" would need the $200K needed to review the application and all that stuff :P
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#14Note that this is in the Independent Submission stream, Informational category: > This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documen…
Which is the case for vast majority of RFCs.
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#15A distributed naming system intended to work with mesh networks like GNUnet. GNS does not support names which are simultaneously global, secure and human-readable. Instead, names are either global and not human-readable or not globally unique and human-readable. In GNS, each user manages their own zones and can delegate subdomains to zones managed by other users. For example, ICANN could just create 'DNS zone' that w…
Or, I guess, "someone" could apply for a custom gTLD and link it. Of course, that "someone" would need the $200K needed to review the application and all that stuff :P
Eh, you realize that this very work on the GNU Name System prompted IETF to create the ".alt" zone for this purpose already, minus the $200k fee? Registration is open at https://gana.gnunet.org/dot-alt/dot_alt.html
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#16A distributed naming system intended to work with mesh networks like GNUnet. GNS does not support names which are simultaneously global, secure and human-readable. Instead, names are either global and not human-readable or not globally unique and human-readable. In GNS, each user manages their own zones and can delegate subdomains to zones managed by other users. For example, ICANN could just create 'DNS zone' that w…
I'd settle for global and not human readable, if it means I get a domain I can use as a CNAME on a nicer domain.
Dynamic dns services are nice and all, but needing to pre-register gets kind of annoying.
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#17I have mixed feelings. A unitary root of naming and the dns is a huge value proposition to walk away from. Fitting gnu names under .alt is only partly ameliorative.
I see it exactly the opposite way. Over time the unitary root of naming has attracted increasing levels of censorship, tracking, abusive seziure, and oppression. The dream of a worldwide namespace has become a nightmare. Let's wake up.
...and do separate nation-wide namespaces? We have those already, and they're actually the main source of censorship, abusive seizure and oppression.
Also, whether there is one namespace root or many, we all still live in a single world.
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#18I have mixed feelings. A unitary root of naming and the dns is a huge value proposition to walk away from. Fitting gnu names under .alt is only partly ameliorative.
I see it exactly the opposite way. Over time the unitary root of naming has attracted increasing levels of censorship, tracking, abusive seziure, and oppression. The dream of a worldwide namespace has become a nightmare. Let's wake up.
Okay, you named some downsides of the unitary root. Now name the downsides of non-unitary roots.
Otherwise your proposal lacks the context to decide if it's a worthwhile tradeoff or not.
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it exactly the opposite way. Over time the unitary root of naming has attracted increasing levels of censorship, tracking, abusive seziure, and oppression. The dream of a worldwide namespace has become a nightmare. Let's wake up.
Okay, you named some downsides of the unitary root. Now name the downsides of non-unitary roots. Otherwise your proposal lacks the context to decide if it's a worthwhile tradeoff or not.
Momentum, random names and (possibly) higher latency. IIRC IPFS is particularly bad latency-wise but I'm not sure how much of that is name lookup vs file transfer, and that could be implementation specific. Name lookups are also very cacheable.
Re: RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
#20A distributed naming system intended to work with mesh networks like GNUnet. GNS does not support names which are simultaneously global, secure and human-readable. Instead, names are either global and not human-readable or not globally unique and human-readable. In GNS, each user manages their own zones and can delegate subdomains to zones managed by other users. For example, ICANN could just create 'DNS zone' that w…
I'd settle for global and not human readable, if it means I get a domain I can use as a CNAME on a nicer domain. Dynamic dns services are nice and all, but needing to pre-register gets kind of annoying.
It can't possibly work, if you want your nicer domain to be globally unique.
If you don't, it depends on how local your domain needs to be; maybe all you need is a record in /etc/hosts on your home router.