5 ms·
Did you mean a new scheme? AFAIK both http, https, and ftp, ssh, rtp, whatever protocols refer to names in their URIs. Names, which may be resolved by different
by labawi 7y ago
Did you mean a new scheme? AFAIK both http, https, and ftp, ssh, rtp, whatever protocols refer to names in their URIs. Names, which may be resolved by different, configurable methods, a few of which are popular, DNS among them, but also hosts files, avahi, netbios, maybe others. There are usually at least 2 of them active.
ICANN is a corrupt organization that has usurped the power to delegate all names, relegating all of them¹ to their² DNS system where, ever since gTLDs, they may be expected lend just about any name. In effect, you are expected not to use a hostname, even on a local network, without paying tribute.
IMO, ICANN needs to be put down, or put to its place, as they do not have a natural right to all hostnames. If they wish to remain an authority on hostnames, they should reserve names for other uses besides DNS.
And stop with the gTLDs - it they give out all interesting TLDs, then there can't be non-colliding alternatives. IMO, if they collide, both are to blame, but ICANN more so than Opera, as they apparently reserve 0 viable host name hierarchies for uses other than DNS.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, some details may be incorrect.
¹ AFAIK exceptions are reserved TLDs: test, example, invalid and localhost. Not really a place for an alternate name system.
² AFAIK there used to be alternative DNS roots.
- CydeWeys 7y agoYou've got quite an agenda here, but the nitpicks don't change the simple fact that making a fake TLD that isn't in root DNS, when the vast majority of users and devices out there will continue using root DNS and root DNS only, is a really bad idea. I'd even go so far as to call it foolish. That's why using a different URI scheme would be smarter: you can control it. You can't control root DNS because that's ICANN's job. At best you can control stuff at the TLD level, if ICANN lets you by delegating you a TLD.
- labawi 7y agoHostnames and DNS are not equivalent. Those are not nitpicks. People use alternative name systems. They can be used with existing protocols and URIs. It's explicitly supported - neither local hosts file nor avahi are DNS. Problem is you need names to use, and you can't really pick non-conflicting ones, if any new gTLDs may be issued by ICANN. There are alternative name systems, mostly using unique alternative TLDs and AFAIK none of them are registered or reserved at ICANN. I presume ICANN doesn't support it, or they want payments as in gTLDs. Payments for protection against future conflicts, not for a service as they do not resolve in DNS. The article may not be clear, but AFAICT *.crypto are in fact resolving domains (among doing other things). When I install support for crypto names on my system, am I supposed to use something like: ping crypto:<domain> ping --crypto <domain> How would an alternate URI scheme help? I agree appropriating .crypto in particular may be a bit presumptuous. At the same time, one might expect .crypto to be administered by crypto, in whatever chaotic way people side with, along with the ensuing brokenness.
- CydeWeys 7y agoPeople shouldn't be using alternative name systems. It causes a huge amount of pain and has been known to do so for several decades now. See: https://jdebp.eu/FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html https://jdebp.eu/FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html The best advice is to use a REAL name, that you own. The second best advice is to, if for some reason you insist on using a fake name, pick something with a low probability of causing collisions. .crypto has a very high probability of causing collisions and is thus a terrible choice.