On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:01:41PM -0300, hellekin wrote: > *** A common denominator of all 6 pTLDs is that they do not use the DNS > tree hierarchy. It's not that they don't want to, but that their > technical approach, both in terms of objectives and solutions, make them > incompatible with a centralized, hierarchic name assignation and resolution.
But that isn't _quite_ true. If I go and read the documentation for bit, it tells me how to configure my DNS servers. In that respect, it seems quite different from the other names. > > It appears, however, that bit is an attack on the existing IANA-managed > > name registration system. > > > *** I'm very sorry to read that. It reminds me the claims that the > automobile industry is an attack on the horse-carriage, or that the > optical drive is an attack on the cassette recorder: it has zero > technical value and seems not to have its place on an IETF mailing list. I am not sure how else to understand the documentation that is available around bit. Part of this could be solved, I suppose, if the documentation for bit were somewhat more detailed (and stable). > The naming system of .bit uses a public ledger based on the technology > introduced with Bitcoin. All that tells me is the policy by which names in bit are registered. In that sense it's not different from zone policies like, "I permit U-labels that include Han characters but not Arabic characters." > .bit, as the other P2P names proposed in our draft, in common, for they > share commonalities, should be considered for their technical merits and > not the political agenda of third parties. My point was not a political one, but a technical one: I don't see what bit offers that is any different from the DNS, and it's requesting that the IETF take back from ICANN a part of the root namespace that is otherwise available to ICANN to delegate. The only justification that I can find in the bit documentation is simply a political one: the proponents don't seem to like the name-registration process that exists now, and they want a different one, but they want it all to work with the DNS. That seems to me to be engineering around a political problem, and I am not convinced that the IETF ought to taking back part of the root name space in order to facilitate that. That doesn't mean that the namecoin system shouldn't be supported. But it seems to me that there's a difference between registering a special name for this, and registering it such that we alter the size of the root namespace. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop