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

"Schanzenbach, Martin" <> Fri, 19 March 2021 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86B03A0CE2 for <>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3Ia6635R_xc for <>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F37B3A0CE1 for <>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from submission ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9430316005F for <>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:29:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from customer (localhost []) by submission ( with ESMTPSA id 4F20WP3Qhbz6tmR; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:29:37 +0100 (CET)
From: "Schanzenbach, Martin" <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E8863BAB-493E-4B77-8C79-FC98A938AB81"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:29:35 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Din] Draft / Specification of the GNU Name System
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of distributed Internet Infrastructure approaches, aspects such as Service Federation, and underlying technologies" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:29:46 -0000


this WG seems inactive and consequently we are kind of in limbo at the moment.
Considering that a recent IAB report basically screams decentralization and
specifically mentions naming [1], we are convinced our draft is still very much relevant,
and such topics are discussed at IETF.
We would like to improve upon the draft and get into more
discussions with interested experts, but we get the feeling this may not be the
correct WG where this is discussed?
As written before we still believe that given the charter of DINRG
this should be the right place for our topic.
If there were other discussions happening on this list we would have inferred that
there is no interest in the draft, but the only response on this ML is the mail from
Dirk indicating interest in it.

We are not sure how to proceed.
Will there be a meeting this year? Would this draft be the only topic?
Are you waiting for additional topics to come up?

If there is no technical feedback to be had for us within this WG, organizational
pointers on how to proceed would be welcome.
Should we go back to secdispatch?
Should we move into independent stream?



> On 24. Jan 2021, at 10:49, Schanzenbach, Martin <> wrote:
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Dirk,
> just wanting to touch base if there will be a DINRG meeting at the next IETF?
> We have continued working on the draft and there have further been efforts to more cleanly specify the set reconciliation for zone revocation in a general fashion here [1].
> Of course we are still available and interested in presenting/discussing the GNS draft at DINRG.
> Best
> Martin
> [1]
>> On 8. Dec 2020, at 21:01, Dirk Kutscher <> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>> 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:
>> thanks for bringing this up and apologies for the late reply.
>> We didn't meet around IETF-109.
>> This is definitely an interesting topic for DINRG, and we should talk about it at an upcoming meetings.
>> We are currently planning upcoming meetings etc., and we should have a more concrete plan for early 2021 activities after new year.
>> In the meantime, please feel free to use the mailing list as well.
>> Thanks,
>> Dirk
>>> 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]
>>>> [2]
>>>> [3]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Din mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Din mailing list