Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request

Hi,

I can't comment on whether this suggestion makes sense for these
overlay networks, but it may be one way of handling these non-DNS
resolving but still use HTTPS/TCP "IN" type things.

I expect that Hellekin, C Grothoff, and others (TOR, namecoin, ...)
would be best placed to comment.

There is still the time challenge for the certificate work.

Thanks for your suggestion, manning.

Hugo Connery
--
Head of IT, DTU Environment, http://www.env.dtu.dk
what the internet should be doing is defining escape mechanisms for
non-internet systems, rather than saying "we are the only thing you can
use".  P Vixie
________________________________________
From: DNSOP [dnsop-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of manning [bmanning@karoshi.com]
Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 15:43
To: Robert Edmonds; Andrew Sullivan
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Some distinctions and a request - Have some class?

Actually, there IS an escape method already defined.  We just don’t use it much these days.
It’s called  “class”

There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class.  they could/should be in their
own class, like the old CHAOS protocols.   So  a class  “ONION” or “P2P” would work out very nicely.

After all it’s the Domain Name System.  (can comprehend names in multiple domains, not just the Internet)

manning
bmanning@karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 2July2015Thursday, at 20:56, manning <bmanning@karoshi.com> wrote:

>
> On 2July2015Thursday, at 18:21, Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> wrote:
>
>> manning wrote:
>>>     There in lies the problem.  These systems have no way to disambiguate a local v. global scope.
>>>        It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets
>>>        and no way to attempt DNS resolution.   Or they need to ensure that DNS resolution occurs after every other “name lookup technology”
>>>        which is not global in scope.
>>
>> I don't understand this point.  Since Onion hidden service names are
>> based on hashes derived from public keys surely they're globally scoped
>> (barring hash collisions)?
>>
>> --
>> Robert Edmonds
>
> If they _are_ globally scoped,  what part of the local system decides which namespace to use, the ONION, the LOCAL, the P2P, the BIT, the BBSS, the DECnetV, the IXP, or the DNS…
> where is search order determined?  Does first match in any namespace win?  What is the tiebreaker when there are label collisions between namespaces?
>
>
> /bill

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop