6 ms·

I have lately started to call dns "a global distributed database", rather than decentralized. Decentralized implies some properties that the dns system most def

I have lately started to call dns "a global distributed database", rather than decentralized. Decentralized implies some properties that the dns system most definitely does not have.

acdha 5y ago
This seems like redefining the term: DNS is fully decentralized in normal operation — the hierarchy has fewer parties involved, but no one entity owns the entire data set the way you’d have in most distributed databases.
- peanut-walrus 5y ago
  In normal operation - true. However, from a technical perspective, any zone operator above yours has the capability to take over your domain(s). While I agree that the root zone operators abusing this power is highly unlikely, for TLD operators under some legal/government pressure this can be quite likely. In fact, domain name seizure is quite a common procedure around the world.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > However, from a technical perspective, any zone operator above yours has the capability to take over your domain(s). That doesn't mean it's not decentralized. If the .kz operator has a heavy hand, it affects people in their legal jurisdiction but not anyone else, and that's true of everything else as well. A system which doesn't allow enforcement of legal requirements will be blocked, and this isn't a technical problem with a technical solution no matter what the blockchain salespeople say.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      It's centralized because owner of `.` can take over `kz.`
      - acdha 5y ago
        That’s a pretty weak claim: ICANN is an international organization with substantial oversight. More importantly, they’re a soft power: if they tried to hijack .kz without a very good reason, they would very quickly not be running a globally-trusted root as ISPs around the world switched away.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        Those are things you could say about any centralized system. They don't change the fact of the centralized structure.
        acdha 5y ago
        Out of curiosity, what’s your proposed functionally-equivalent replacement?
        DarylZero 5y ago
        I propose we replace all descriptions of DNS as decentralized with descriptions that call DNS centralized. Starting with your comments in this thread.
        acdha 5y ago
        So … you don’t have an alternative?
        DarylZero 5y ago
        Whether I have an alternative or not, I'm not going to get side-tracked by stupid questions about alternatives.
        egberts1 5y ago
        Until then, you’ve been apparently getting side-tracked.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  It's not decentralized. There's a center. The center used to be Jon Postel, now it's ICANN. It's a hierarchy of delegated authority (aka "bailiwick"... aka "domain") emanating from the center. > no one entity owns the entire data set Because of the delegated authority. But the authority is all delegated from a center. It means there's a central point where names can be removed. The central point owns as much of the data set as they choose to own.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > The central point owns as much of the data set as they choose to own. Less inaccurately, ICANN has social consensus to be trusted with the root delegations. If they abuse that position, that consensus would very quickly disappear because they don’t own any of it.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      That is the kind of thing that one says about a centralized system when they want to defend its center.
      - acdha 5y ago
        So … what’s your alternative?
        DarylZero 5y ago
        I'm not here to debate DNS. I only explain that DNS delegation is structured with a central `.` zone. The central node is all-powerful. It can remove any name by removing the top level delegation for that name.
        egberts1 5y ago
        Try running a root server like I do for myself. You will reevaluate what you have just said by then.

I have lately started to call dns "a global distributed database", rather than decentralized. Decentralized implies some properties that the dns system most definitely does not have.

acdha 5y ago

This seems like redefining the term: DNS is fully decentralized in normal operation — the hierarchy has fewer parties involved, but no one entity owns the entire data set the way you’d have in most distributed databases.

peanut-walrus 5y ago
In normal operation - true. However, from a technical perspective, any zone operator above yours has the capability to take over your domain(s). While I agree that the root zone operators abusing this power is highly unlikely, for TLD operators under some legal/government pressure this can be quite likely. In fact, domain name seizure is quite a common procedure around the world.
- acdha 5y ago
  > However, from a technical perspective, any zone operator above yours has the capability to take over your domain(s). That doesn't mean it's not decentralized. If the .kz operator has a heavy hand, it affects people in their legal jurisdiction but not anyone else, and that's true of everything else as well. A system which doesn't allow enforcement of legal requirements will be blocked, and this isn't a technical problem with a technical solution no matter what the blockchain salespeople say.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    It's centralized because owner of `.` can take over `kz.`
    - acdha 5y ago
      That’s a pretty weak claim: ICANN is an international organization with substantial oversight. More importantly, they’re a soft power: if they tried to hijack .kz without a very good reason, they would very quickly not be running a globally-trusted root as ISPs around the world switched away.
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        Those are things you could say about any centralized system. They don't change the fact of the centralized structure.
        acdha 5y ago
        Out of curiosity, what’s your proposed functionally-equivalent replacement?
        DarylZero 5y ago
        I propose we replace all descriptions of DNS as decentralized with descriptions that call DNS centralized. Starting with your comments in this thread.
        acdha 5y ago
        So … you don’t have an alternative?
        DarylZero 5y ago
        Whether I have an alternative or not, I'm not going to get side-tracked by stupid questions about alternatives.
        egberts1 5y ago
        Until then, you’ve been apparently getting side-tracked.
DarylZero 5y ago
It's not decentralized. There's a center. The center used to be Jon Postel, now it's ICANN. It's a hierarchy of delegated authority (aka "bailiwick"... aka "domain") emanating from the center. > no one entity owns the entire data set Because of the delegated authority. But the authority is all delegated from a center. It means there's a central point where names can be removed. The central point owns as much of the data set as they choose to own.
- acdha 5y ago
  > The central point owns as much of the data set as they choose to own. Less inaccurately, ICANN has social consensus to be trusted with the root delegations. If they abuse that position, that consensus would very quickly disappear because they don’t own any of it.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    That is the kind of thing that one says about a centralized system when they want to defend its center.
    - acdha 5y ago
      So … what’s your alternative?
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        I'm not here to debate DNS. I only explain that DNS delegation is structured with a central `.` zone. The central node is all-powerful. It can remove any name by removing the top level delegation for that name.
        egberts1 5y ago
        Try running a root server like I do for myself. You will reevaluate what you have just said by then.