Hi Andy,
> Also, we might want to make it explicit in the spec that you can't
> have duplicate records? Many DNS records allow multiple for
> redundancy. Is that desired here?
Agreed, this should be made explicit in the bLIP. I don't see a reason
to allow duplicate records, so we should require
On 11/20/23 6:53 AM, Andy Schroder wrote:
- I would omit suggesting to use DoH from the spec. DoH seems a bit centralized to me and that's
up to the client to decide what to do. DNS itself is a hierarchically distributed system, so
there is redundancy built into it (which has its flaw at
> I agree that option 3 and 1 should be used. However, you say "clients
> (mobile wallets) would first make a DNS request corresponding to
> option 3, and if that fails, they would fallback to option 1. Domain
> owners would implement only one of those two options, depending on
> their DNS
- I would omit suggesting to use DoH from the spec. DoH seems a bit
centralized to me and that's up to the client to decide what to do.
DNS itself is a hierarchically distributed system, so there is
redundancy built into it (which has its flaw at the root nameserver /
ICANN level) and it
Hi Tony, Andy,
Matt already answered most of your questions in the previous emails.
Here are additional answers to make sure this is clear enough.
> The interchanging between "bob" and "domain owner" is a bit confusing
> in your gist.
I'm not sure what interchanging you're referring to. Alice
On 11/17/23 8:28 AM, Andy Schroder wrote:
#Comments
## General
- I agree that option 3 and 1 should be used. However, you say "clients (mobile wallets) would first
make a DNS request corresponding to option 3, and if that fails, they would fallback to option 1.
Domain owners would
On 11/17/23 9:54 AM, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev wrote:
Bastien,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding option 1 or perhaps it's not clear. Are you saying with that option, all
it takes is a single DNS entry for "serviceprovider.com" to service unlimited users? The
interchanging between "bob" and
The LNURL way still relies on DNS so I'm confused why you'd want to add
a webserver into the mix if you don't have to. Adding a webserver is
increasing the latency, data transfer, and cost. There there are so many
extra round trips required because you have multiple services and aren't
doing
Bastien,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding option 1 or perhaps it's not clear. Are you saying
with that option, all it takes is a single DNS entry for "serviceprovider.com"
to service unlimited users? The interchanging between "bob" and "domain owner"
is a bit confusing in your gist. I think it would
#Comments
## General
- I agree that option 3 and 1 should be used. However, you say "clients
(mobile wallets) would first make a DNS request corresponding to option
3, and if that fails, they would fallback to option 1. Domain owners
would implement only one of those two options, depending
Hi Tony,
> For completeness, would you be willing to demonstrate what it might
> look like if it were bolt12 in the normal LNURL way?
Not sure that would provide "completeness", but I guess it would work
quite similarly, but instead of putting data in DNS records, that data
would be directly on
Bastien,
For completeness, would you be willing to demonstrate what it might look like
if it were bolt12 in the normal LNURL way? The concern is mostly what you
brought up with relying on DNS entries instead of a typical web server. At
scale, that would be much more difficult for LNURL service
12 matches
Mail list logo
