Discuss mailing list

[Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>]

Quinn -
When opennic peers with other alt-roots, we are not expecting to have any form of control over their TLDs, nor do we expect to be registering domains for those peers.  NewNations is a perfect example of what the standard peering arrangements have been in the past with other roots...  There is some communication, but in general we agree to carry their TLDs and point to their nameservers for resolution, and in return they do the same for opennic.

There are varying degrees of this.  Consider the .fur zone.  They have been associated with opennic for a very long time, but in the end they are still a separate group, peering with opennic.  They are unique in that their group also carries a full tier-1 server within the opennic structure, but that is not typical, nor expected.  Who is to say that we can't swing the other direction with a peering arrangement, and have one-way resolution so that our members have access to something that there is an interest in?  And yes, there has been some interest shown here as indicated by the current voting.

Now I agree that 'peering' is not the correct work for this arrangement, and if this vote passes it will set a precedent for being the first arrangement where we have no open dialog with the group that hosts the target TLD.  But keep in mind that opennic has always been an open project, and if this is something that our members want, then we will do what we can to help make it a reality.

On 05/11/2014 06:47 AM, Quinn Wood wrote:

On May 11, 2014, at 4:22, Calum McAlinden <calum AT mcalinden.me.uk> wrote:

On 11 May 2014 02:54, Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com> wrote:

* This is a misleading proposal, as no peering is taking place. You
want to perform one-way (OpenNIC to Namecoin) access. As I've already
mentioned this- at best- isn't useful in any way I find obvious.

Sorry, "peering" was the wrong word to use.  It is useful where
OpenNIC users would like to access .bit and OpenNIC using a reliable
DNS server near them. Setting up a local DNS resolver is too difficult
for some users.

Have you seen a real world desire for this that is best fulfilled by every T1 operating this access? 1.8G is a lot of space to use [on a nameservers of OpenNIC's scale] for something that's only interesting to you. Someone who knows better than me may correct me, but this would probably be larger than all our other zones combined.

I don't want to see OpenNIC become a one-way gateway to every DNS alt-root out there. Small, unorganized alt-roots are bad.

* There's no charter. I don't know that one is possible, because
nobody here is in control of the top level zone. What are you going to
do, refuse to let people resolve using your DNS server if they
register a domain you don't like or use their domain to crack/spam?
Tough, their domain is still there and kicking, all with the glorious
implicit support of OpenNIC that the anti-cracking/spaming policy was
intended to prevent.

I do not intend to modify any domains. We still resolve the ICANN
domains, many of which contain illegal/cracking/spam websites.

Then you don't need this proposal. If we aren't going to offer information and registrations/administration (though NewNations may be guilty of this as well, if they actually still operate and we peer with them) on an OpenNIC-accessible site we don't need to have a mandatory, community-wide access system.

* There's no (proof of) an information, registration, and
administration service (web-based or otherwise.) This is possible with
Namecoin, just as you can proxy between typical DNS clients and
namecoind.

Correct, this is not necessary as domains are registered through the
Namecoin client or through a variety of web based services.

Yes it is necessary. Otherwise there's no point in us running it. See above. To expand upon my requests for evidence of real demand, as well as notable sites people would be gaining access to- and in an absence of contrary information- I submit that people interested in Namecoin will probably be able willing to use it properly. In a way that doesn't undermined the decentralization and validation it offers. Using the client, a helper proxy DNS server, and their own DNS settings.

* There is no (proof of) a service we as a community can rely on to
be stable and secure.
* There is no (proof of) an admin we as a community can depend on, get
a hold of, or boot in the ass when things are broken.

I can't really answer this. I have only been around for several
months, but I am a trustworthy server operator. You have my full
permission to "boot me in the ass" (metaphorically).

Good. You should still have proof of a running service that you've theoretically worked the starting kinks out of before asking other people to approve a community-wide deployment of said service.

You want to provide a service, do it on your own time- just like
DNSCrypt and operator-specific bridges/peerings.

If you're talking about tier2s, you said yourself (with regard to
voluntary support from individual tier 2s):

"As always, I am against this kind of bypassing of consensus. We do it
or we don't do it."

That comment isn't remotely directed towards independently-run features. It's directed towards the "Hey everyone, add this TLD without proper consensus and then let's vote on it when it's already the norm to run it!" attitude we were getting a while back as well as any future, unrelated consensus-bypassing weaseling in new TLD matters.

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org