Re: [Din] Draft / Specification of the GNU Name System

[Martin Schanzenbach <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

we wanted to check back with you if it makes sense to coordinate next
week at IETF 109. It seems as if dinrg is not (yet) listed on the
agenda?

According to the minutes of IETF 108, the next steps would involve
coordination/deconflicting with DINRG:
https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-secdispatch#

Best Regards
Martin


On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 15:13 +0200, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> Dear DINRG,
> 
> at IETF 104, we have presented to you our work on the GNU Name System
> [1].
> Since then, we have been working on improvements and a technical
> specification of the system [2].
> At IETF 108, we appeared at secdispatch in order to discuss if the
> draft may fit into any existing WG in IETF (or IRTF) [3].
> We were encouraged to ask DINRG if it would be interested in this
> work and continue improving and working on it (see minutes of
> secdispatch). Your charter would certainly support the general theme
> of the protocol: "The evolution of distributed ledger technologies
> and the platforms that leverage them has given rise to the
> development of decentralized communication and infrastructure
> systems, and experiments with the same. Some examples include name
> resolution (Namecoin, Ethereum Name Service), identity management
> (OneName), distributed storage (IPFS, MaidSafe), distributed
> applications, or DApps (Blockstack), and IP address allocation and
> delegation."
> 
> Since our appearance at secdispatch, we have received a lot of
> feedback from the community and experts. We have taken the time to
> incorporate the feedback and the result is in the current version of
> the draft as well as our implementation.
> As you can see, the draft versions 01 and 02 differ significantly.
> The two major changes regarding the protocol that we have made are:
> 
> 1. Improve crypto agility: Allow other zone key types and key
> derivation schemes and define the required properties.
> 2. Improve crypto implementation: The used symmetric encryption
> scheme has been replaced to be more resilient to IND-CCA
> 
> For (1.) we have drafted an alternative scheme based on Schnorr
> signatures. This instantiation is still a draft and not implemented.
> Any feedback here is specifically welcomed and helpful.
> 
> Finally, we would be happy to appear at the next IETF and discuss
> whether DINRG would be a place to continue our work with you.
> 
> Best
> Martin
> 
> [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/104/slides/slides-104-dinrg-gnu-name-system-00.pdf
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schanzen-gns/
> [3]
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-secdispatch-02