On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Subject: Re: [Din] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-mayrhofer-did-dns-01.txt
I think this document should be Experimental and not Standards Track?
The reference to 7929 should be normative, not informative, since
you actually need to read a secion of 7929 to implement this document.
I'm not sure if one should use _did.example.com for host names and
_mailto._did.example.com for email addresses. I would keep that at
the same level, eg:
_hostname._did.example.com
_mailto._did.example.com
This technically also allows one to separate the two DNS zones more
clearly (and could even be managed by a different group)
I'm really on the fence for this document. On the one hand, it is good
to have a memorable decentralized identifier, but on the other hand if
you rely on DNS (and DNSSEC), is this identifier really still
decentralised in the "we don't trust the USG or Verisign" way ?
I guess if you interpret it as a migration strategy away from DNS, it is okay.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
