On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Tao Effect <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's a meta-TLD, not a TLD. > > Say what? If the idea is that I can get a certificate with > paulehoffman.dns put in the field reserved for domain names, and have that > accepted by TLS servers, it is a TLD. No "meta". > > If this TLD gets allocated to someone else, or gets blocked by > middleboxes, you have no one to blame but yourself. It would be *trivial* > to avoid this problem by buying an SLD and pre-paying for 20 years of > registration. > Paul, Why would anyone need a certificate in this system? The binding to a public key is intrinsic to the whole naming architecture. Come to that, why would anyone need .dns??? If namecoin is going to replace the DNS, why make the mistake of upper level hierarchy? Surely the new system should be the apex of the hierarchy and the legacy DNS subordinated under .icann. I do have a solution though. There are some TLDs that are not expletives that are almost certain to be permanently withheld from issue. I suggest they consider using .pot or .weed. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
