3 ms·

If I could go back in time and change how domain names work, I would probably do 2 things: 1. Flip the order of parts, ex. com.ycombinator.news - this makes th

If I could go back in time and change how domain names work, I would probably do 2 things: 1. Flip the order of parts, ex. com.ycombinator.news - this makes the whole URL big-endian, instead of the absurd middle-endian system we have now. 2. Either a. drop the requirement to have TLDs at all - gmail would just be "https://google.mail/inbox https://google.mail/inbox" (including my first suggestion; "google" is the root domain), or perhaps just "https://gmail/inbox https://gmail/inbox" OR b. actually commit to a small number of strictly-enforced TLDs - com is not the default, it requires a corporate entity to register, we probably push on having a single TLD for individual humans so ex. blogs tend to live under... actually the "name" TLD wasn't a terrible idea but I'm flexible on exact details of that TLD, just so there's only one of them. Second-levels like us or eu are fine but should again actually enforce having an entity in that country so almost nobody ends up using io or such.

hobs 2y ago
If you want trust having a corporate entity is not it, you can make them with no actual humans in the chain of trust, and you can easily register the same company name in multiple countries and cause havoc (as demonstrated with the EV certs)
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  It's not really about "trust" per se, more about forcing domains to be in the right TLD. Today my personal blog lives on a .com domain, which is absurd except that .com is de-facto the default. I aspire to a world where that doesn't happen, because all domains that aren't literally for a business are on something else, so com can't be a default. (Corollary: If you create legal entities in multiple countries, I don't care if you have domains to match. I just want to avoid the current sillyness where people use the io TLD even they have zero association, even on paper, with the British Indian Ocean Territory (or whoever you believe should control that TLD))
mock-possum 2y ago
Yeah I like knowing that .us.gov is always a government site, and .edu is always an educational site, and there are governing bodies enforcing that policy - but for the rest, biz and net and com and io are cute, but completely unnecessary. I’d love to just go to https://gmail https://gmail .
- tok1 2y ago
  This "trust aspect" implied (or assured?) by certain TLDs, or for the non-US world by second-level domains under ccTLDs, has been, interestingly, completely missed by several countries in the early Internet days, including fairly large ones like e.g. Germany: Annoyingly, you cannot identify a federal agency or otherwise "official" website by its domain--no trailing .gov.de or the likes, it will alway be "just" ending in .de, which makes things like phishing but also deception (by implying a certain level of authority but in fact selling services from a private entity) unnecessarily easy. This is contrary to other countries' .gov.uk, .gv.at, .edu.au, etc. Although created for different reasons, I think, the Public Suffix List gives some indication of which countries enforce such namespaces (or did), see https://publicsuffix.org/list/ https://publicsuffix.org/list/
  - emilecantin 2y ago
    Here they do have such domains: .gc.ca for the Government of Canada, and .gouv.qc.ca for the Québec government. But annoyingly they both seem to be moving towards canada.ca and quebec.ca, respectively. There's even a whole .quebec TLD now that they could use, but no.
  - taejo 2y ago
    There is bund.de for the federal government, with e.g. the interior ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) at bmi.bund.de. But personenstandsrecht.de has nothing in the domain name or even the whois to indicate that it really is part of the interior ministry as it claims. There are links to it from bmi.bund.de so presumably...
- _blk 2y ago
  ...and the rest of the world goes out empty. IMHO better: .gov.us, .edu.us
metadat 2y ago
I like #1, but won't domain squatting become even more severe with #2.a? Maybe there should be a regional prefix, e.g. us.gov, nz.gov, cn.gov.. and even this still comes with obvious issues and possible confusion. No silver bullets to be had, only tradeoffs.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  That's a good point - I would be very much on board with mandating per-country TLDs, which is extra helpful because then you can deal with domain squatter through the legal system.
- _blk 2y ago
  Not sure on what grounds nic.gov would then issue domains to disputed govts, coup d'états, ... But it wouldn't seem to hard for each govt to claim .gov.tld (.gov.us - would also be easier to pass down e.g. .az.gov.us) Fun fact, Switzerland's govt went for admin.ch (even pre .com boom times)
bluejekyll 2y ago
I like reordering of the named components to big-endian, but just for reference, the current system dates back to the idea of “search domains”, which allows you to do things like “www” and that takes you to “www.example.com” because that is in your search or domain list in your stub resolver config. (This behavior can be skipped by using the fqdn with a dot at the end, “www.example.com.”) I think moving to a new ordering of the name would then imply that we’d either need a different DNS or a new separator for specifying the reverse name ordering (that’s compatible with existing URL syntax).
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Well, that's why this is purely a time-travel fantasy - I don't think we'll ever get a do-over:) And I can see the appeal to search domains, but I think in hindsight they pretty much failed, and what utility they have can be replaced with local or internal or something - "internal.www" can still be your intranet site, but now it's explicit. Or if we go with the other suggestion to force country TLDs then maybe it's fine for local DNS resolvers to do nonstandard TLDs, though I'm not super fond of that.
  - bluejekyll 2y ago
    If we’re going to do some time travel, I’d also like to make the DNS packets easily versionable and add some space for additional version codes, the current extension mechanism with eDNS is quite cumbersome.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      Oh yeah, I don't usually work at that layer so didn't think about it, but I'd probably also make it TCP only so we could skip it being a DDoS vector.
      - nine_k 2y ago
        It would make it noticeably slower on the early Internet, though.
lijok 2y ago
Could go the other way. Make TLDs trivial to set up for anyone, so “gmail” becomes the TLD. Without changing how DNS resolution works I don’t think the root domain would be happy to handle that kind of traffic however.
karencarits 2y ago
#1 sounds like something hacky web browsers should introduce as an option for the address bar, as it's just aesthetics (I know it's not _just_ aesthetics, but close enough). Either to flip it, or perhaps even a regexp of some sort?
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  You could, but IMHO it's a terrible idea to add after the fact. Like, yeah if I had a time machine I would want to change it, but trying to change it today, even and perhaps especially in a cosmetic way, would just lead to confusion, ambiguity, and security problems.
slillibri 2y ago
The .name tld probably is a bad idea, just think about the 80000 Bob Smiths in the US. I don’t think there is any good scheme for that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ChoHag 2y ago
[dead]

hobs 2y ago

If you want trust having a corporate entity is not it, you can make them with no actual humans in the chain of trust, and you can easily register the same company name in multiple countries and cause havoc (as demonstrated with the EV certs)

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
It's not really about "trust" per se, more about forcing domains to be in the right TLD. Today my personal blog lives on a .com domain, which is absurd except that .com is de-facto the default. I aspire to a world where that doesn't happen, because all domains that aren't literally for a business are on something else, so com can't be a default. (Corollary: If you create legal entities in multiple countries, I don't care if you have domains to match. I just want to avoid the current sillyness where people use the io TLD even they have zero association, even on paper, with the British Indian Ocean Territory (or whoever you believe should control that TLD))

mock-possum 2y ago

Yeah I like knowing that .us.gov is always a government site, and .edu is always an educational site, and there are governing bodies enforcing that policy - but for the rest, biz and net and com and io are cute, but completely unnecessary. I’d love to just go to https://gmail https://gmail .

tok1 2y ago
This "trust aspect" implied (or assured?) by certain TLDs, or for the non-US world by second-level domains under ccTLDs, has been, interestingly, completely missed by several countries in the early Internet days, including fairly large ones like e.g. Germany: Annoyingly, you cannot identify a federal agency or otherwise "official" website by its domain--no trailing .gov.de or the likes, it will alway be "just" ending in .de, which makes things like phishing but also deception (by implying a certain level of authority but in fact selling services from a private entity) unnecessarily easy. This is contrary to other countries' .gov.uk, .gv.at, .edu.au, etc. Although created for different reasons, I think, the Public Suffix List gives some indication of which countries enforce such namespaces (or did), see https://publicsuffix.org/list/ https://publicsuffix.org/list/
- emilecantin 2y ago
  Here they do have such domains: .gc.ca for the Government of Canada, and .gouv.qc.ca for the Québec government. But annoyingly they both seem to be moving towards canada.ca and quebec.ca, respectively. There's even a whole .quebec TLD now that they could use, but no.
- taejo 2y ago
  There is bund.de for the federal government, with e.g. the interior ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) at bmi.bund.de. But personenstandsrecht.de has nothing in the domain name or even the whois to indicate that it really is part of the interior ministry as it claims. There are links to it from bmi.bund.de so presumably...
_blk 2y ago
...and the rest of the world goes out empty. IMHO better: .gov.us, .edu.us

metadat 2y ago

I like #1, but won't domain squatting become even more severe with #2.a? Maybe there should be a regional prefix, e.g. us.gov, nz.gov, cn.gov.. and even this still comes with obvious issues and possible confusion. No silver bullets to be had, only tradeoffs.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
That's a good point - I would be very much on board with mandating per-country TLDs, which is extra helpful because then you can deal with domain squatter through the legal system.
_blk 2y ago
Not sure on what grounds nic.gov would then issue domains to disputed govts, coup d'états, ... But it wouldn't seem to hard for each govt to claim .gov.tld (.gov.us - would also be easier to pass down e.g. .az.gov.us) Fun fact, Switzerland's govt went for admin.ch (even pre .com boom times)

bluejekyll 2y ago

I like reordering of the named components to big-endian, but just for reference, the current system dates back to the idea of “search domains”, which allows you to do things like “www” and that takes you to “www.example.com” because that is in your search or domain list in your stub resolver config. (This behavior can be skipped by using the fqdn with a dot at the end, “www.example.com.”) I think moving to a new ordering of the name would then imply that we’d either need a different DNS or a new separator for specifying the reverse name ordering (that’s compatible with existing URL syntax).

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Well, that's why this is purely a time-travel fantasy - I don't think we'll ever get a do-over:) And I can see the appeal to search domains, but I think in hindsight they pretty much failed, and what utility they have can be replaced with local or internal or something - "internal.www" can still be your intranet site, but now it's explicit. Or if we go with the other suggestion to force country TLDs then maybe it's fine for local DNS resolvers to do nonstandard TLDs, though I'm not super fond of that.
- bluejekyll 2y ago
  If we’re going to do some time travel, I’d also like to make the DNS packets easily versionable and add some space for additional version codes, the current extension mechanism with eDNS is quite cumbersome.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Oh yeah, I don't usually work at that layer so didn't think about it, but I'd probably also make it TCP only so we could skip it being a DDoS vector.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      It would make it noticeably slower on the early Internet, though.

lijok 2y ago

Could go the other way. Make TLDs trivial to set up for anyone, so “gmail” becomes the TLD. Without changing how DNS resolution works I don’t think the root domain would be happy to handle that kind of traffic however.

karencarits 2y ago

#1 sounds like something hacky web browsers should introduce as an option for the address bar, as it's just aesthetics (I know it's not _just_ aesthetics, but close enough). Either to flip it, or perhaps even a regexp of some sort?

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
You could, but IMHO it's a terrible idea to add after the fact. Like, yeah if I had a time machine I would want to change it, but trying to change it today, even and perhaps especially in a cosmetic way, would just lead to confusion, ambiguity, and security problems.

slillibri 2y ago

The .name tld probably is a bad idea, just think about the 80000 Bob Smiths in the US. I don’t think there is any good scheme for that.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ChoHag 2y ago

[dead]