3 ms·

How so? I see how "the" DNS is centralized in ICANN's list of root servers, but from a technical standpoint isn't the use of that list just a convention?

• saurik 9y ago
  By this definition of "centralized", nothing is centralized. For DNS to have any meaning--particularly in the way it is used by HTML--requires there to be a person whose job is to run a server that maps "name a human enjoys using" to "name that a computer can connect to" in a way that is stable over time. To the extent to which DNS "the protocol" (as opposed to DNS "the concept") is incapable of enforcing that everyone uses the same servers (as no protocol can force that; again: with this definition, nothing is centralized), we have been building out cryptographic mitigations into other protocols (such as TLS and X.509) that act as a form of checksum against DNS failing to be used to access the one shared reality. Yes: a user can opt to use a totally different "shadow Internet" by using different DNS root servers and different CA root servers, but that is true of any protocol.
  • 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
    I'm not talking about just anchoring a hierarchy at an alternative root. What I mean is that as far as I know, nothing (DNSSEC notwithstanding) really prevents breaking away from the strict hierarchical model altogether and doing something like a system with web-of-trust or filtered by heuristics. From there it's possible to think about how to build a genuine consensus beyond "ICANN says these are the root servers; who am I to argue?". For TLS (DANE notwithstanding), I very well might misunderstand the situation but I thought it only mattered that the client, server, and CA agree on the server's name, not that they agree on a particular delegation of authority for assigning that name.
• nyolfen 9y ago
  "the" web uses "the" dns