On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:10:06PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov <[email protected]> wrote a message of 37 lines which said:
> Now, however, I see that there're at least /two/ flavors of > TLD's as employed by P2P networks. More widespread are > "pseudo" TLD's, which aren't intended to map DNS names to one > or more conventional DNS resource records. These are very good candidate for the "special names" registry I was mentioning. This registry is for TLD where the _implementation_ has to do something special (for ".local", for instance, using Apple mDNS and not DNS to resolve the names). > The other TLD's allow for conventional DNS zones, although > without the usual delegation rules inherent to the DNS design. > Such is the GNUnet's user-managed .gnunet hierarchy, as well > as the soon to be standardized mDNS' .local, and perhaps > other. I am not sure this distinction is the right one. mDNS certainly does not use "conventional DNS zones" (it is named DNS by Apple but it is not DNS). I fail to see the difference between gandalf.local (resolved with mDNS) and 1f5eeb0a33c4468149ea8c897b86366215037dd76997f290609369a721161db5.keys where 1f5eeb0a33c4468149ea8c897b86366215037dd76997f290609369a721161db5 is a crypto digest resolved in a DHT. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
