6 ms·
RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System
- pierrelf 3y agoCool! Seems similar to Handshake domains?
- toomim 3y agoGNS seems not to replace the actual names like Handshake -- but just the protocol for distributing the names across the network. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32223129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32223129
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoHas anyone been following along with what the plan is for GNS? An RFC is quite cool but are there any zones being distributed over GNS to play around with?
- schanzen 3y agoWe are currently working on mirroring some DNS TLDs: https://www.gnunet.org/en/news/2022-11-NGI-Entrust-GNS-TLDs.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/news/2022-11-NGI-Entrust-GNS-TLDs.... I have been a bit preoccupied with the RFC and other stuff recently, but its progressing.
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoThanks! Big fan of the project, I've been following it for ages. Thanks for the hard work.
- toomim 3y agoPrevious discussion of GNU Name System: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32222360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32222360
- ggm 3y agoI have mixed feelings. A unitary root of naming and the dns is a huge value proposition to walk away from. Fitting gnu names under .alt is only partly ameliorative.
- crotchfire 3y agoI see it exactly the opposite way. Over time the unitary root of naming has attracted increasing levels of censorship, tracking, abusive seziure, and oppression. The dream of a worldwide namespace has become a nightmare. Let's wake up.
- Joker_vD 3y ago...and do separate nation-wide namespaces? We have those already, and they're actually the main source of censorship, abusive seizure and oppression. Also, whether there is one namespace root or many, we all still live in a single world.
- zaphar 3y agoOkay, you named some downsides of the unitary root. Now name the downsides of non-unitary roots. Otherwise your proposal lacks the context to decide if it's a worthwhile tradeoff or not.
- rendaw 3y agoMomentum, random names and (possibly) higher latency. IIRC IPFS is particularly bad latency-wise but I'm not sure how much of that is name lookup vs file transfer, and that could be implementation specific. Name lookups are also very cacheable.
- nine_k 3y agoI think what's missing is that squatters and other bad actors are going to attack the distributed name system, too. It should be somehow resilient, and ideally resistant, against deliberate misuse by powerful parties. For instance, DoS attacks that pollute the namespace and could make the distributed naming service too slow or resource-intensive will necessarily be mounted. This is one place where a significant proof of work, along the lines of Namecoin or handshake.org, would make sense. (Another place is password hashing, for example.)
- chrismorgan 3y agoNote that this is in the Independent Submission stream, Informational category: > This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
- dfox 3y agoWhich is the case for vast majority of RFCs.
- ekr____ 3y agoSome clarification might help here. People usually think of RFCs as being the output of the IETF, and the IETF is the biggest contributor by far. Roughly half of the IETF's RFCs are standards or on what's called the "standards track" (most Internet standards are formally at the "Proposed Standard" rather than "Standard" level). The remainder have some other status such as "Informational". However, there are also other entities that publish into the RFC Series, including the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). In addition, there is what's called the Independent Stream, in which an appointed editor just determines what documents can be published. Importantly, this last category hasn't gone through the IETF consensus process: they're just something someone wanted to publish as an RFC and the Independent Series Editor agreed. GNU Name System falls into this category.
- schanzen 3y agoThis is correct. I would like to add that the ISE also had us engage with a variety of stakeholders within the IETF (dnsop, for example, as part of discussions on RFC 9476) and also expected some third party reviews. This is probably the time to thank and give credit to all reviewers and the ISE in particular, again :) https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9498.html#name-acknowledgements https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9498.html#name-acknowledge...
- nabla9 3y agoA distributed naming system intended to work with mesh networks like GNUnet. GNS does not support names which are simultaneously global, secure and human-readable. Instead, names are either global and not human-readable or not globally unique and human-readable. In GNS, each user manages their own zones and can delegate subdomains to zones managed by other users. For example, ICANN could just create 'DNS zone' that would embed DNS as a zone into GNS.
- tecleandor 3y agoOr, I guess, "someone" could apply for a custom gTLD and link it. Of course, that "someone" would need the $200K needed to review the application and all that stuff :P
- grothoff 3y agoEh, you realize that this very work on the GNU Name System prompted IETF to create the ".alt" zone for this purpose already, minus the $200k fee? Registration is open at https://gana.gnunet.org/dot-alt/dot_alt.html https://gana.gnunet.org/dot-alt/dot_alt.html
- extraduder_ire 3y agoI'd settle for global and not human readable, if it means I get a domain I can use as a CNAME on a nicer domain. Dynamic dns services are nice and all, but needing to pre-register gets kind of annoying.
- nine_k 3y agoIt can't possibly work, if you want your nicer domain to be globally unique. If you don't, it depends on how local your domain needs to be; maybe all you need is a record in /etc/hosts on your home router.
- extraduder_ire 3y agoWould <UUID>.example.com not work? With first to register getting priority. Or <pubkey>.example.com with the corresponding private key needed to do updates. The "nicer" domain I am referring to would be a normal domain from a registrar.
- mikl 3y ago[flagged]
- eterevsky 3y agoYep. In 2000 when I saw "GNU" in the name, I got mildly excited. Now when I see it, I'm expecting it to be semi-abandoned and its developers to care more about ideology than about the technology.
- account42 3y agoThere is nothing "toxic" about Stallman or GNU.
- petee 3y ago“GNU slash Linux” Its a matter of personal opinion and perspective. I find their attitude generally to be toxic, even if it is just based in good ideals; how you communicate with others does matter.