On 2014-02-03, at 11:15, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > >> "squatted" is not a bad word here. In the physical world, squatters >> are often people who do not have the money to rent a home, because >> some rich people put the price of the housing too high. Here, you will >> have trouble convincing the users of Tor or Namecoin that it is right >> to pay 185 000 $ for a TLD and that, if they cannot afford it, they >> have to stay in the slums. >> >> [End of political rant, sorry] > > Your political rant is, however, off-base. Assume for the moment that the Tor > folks had registered oniontld.fr for a relatively small amount of money. It > could have all of the attributes of .onion: you could hard-wire it into local > resolvers, some requests for it would leak to the DNS and therefore possibly > be trackable, and so on. For the purposes given in > draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names, unsquatted FQDNs would work just > as well as squatted TLDs. I made that point somewhat earlier (but my example was onion.eff.org or something). The reasonable response to my instance of that observation was that there's a significant deployed base of users already making use of .onion [1], and we don't have a time machine that we're aware of [2] to allow that to be fixed. Despite the enduring (and endearing, perhaps) optimism that the new gTLD programme would eventually bear fruit, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that in 2002 [3] a new gTLD wasn't really a practical option to choose not to take. So squatting doesn't sound right to me. Joe [1] https://metrics.torproject.org [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/02/stephen-hawking-time-travel_n_1643488.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#History
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
