Discuss mailing list

[Fusl Dash <opennic AT lists.dedilink.eu>]

> I can definitely think of some other TLD for that purpose.
Please do so. .glue is currently a mess and needs to be cleaned up anyway, we 
shouldn't be handing out NS delegations for a .glue domain at this time but 
this will change with the new infrastructure as there will be a better 
structure for this.

On 2017-02-20 15:10, Jonah Aragon wrote:
> I chose modern.glue because there doesn't appear to be a ".glue" zone at 
> all in the root, just ".opennic.glue", and the Wiki seems to say that usage 
> is shared among OpenNIC and it's peers (although I could be misinterpreting 
> it). Even if ".glue" does exist, we don't actually use it here outside of 
> ".opennic.glue" so I would imagine moving ".opennic.glue" to the root 
> wouldn't be that great a challenge, I'm not even sure "glue" would have to 
> exist independently at all. That way when establishing peering agreements 
> you could simply add, for example, [peername].glue directly to the root, 
> pointing at the other peer's authoritative nameserver(s). If we were 
> interested here in expanding our peering agreements in the future, that may 
> not be a bad idea. It kind of unifies the alt-root scene, and makes the 
> whole infrastructure thing easier to handle, in my opinion. 
> 
> That's just my 2 cents, I can definitely think of some other TLD for that 
> purpose.
> 
> Regarding servers, I was somewhat assuming it would act similarly to ns11 
> operating as a bridge, and it would slave the zones from our other 
> authoritative nameservers, similarly to now ns9 operates with .bit. But we 
> can definitely just add more servers to the root directly for that purpose 
> (since the domains would presumably no longer be slaved by OpenNIC 
> resolvers), which would probably make more sense.
> 
> Thanks for your insight :)
> 
> Jonah
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:21 AM Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net 
> <mailto:shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>> wrote:
> 
>     The only issue I see in this would be trying to overlap the usage of 
> the .glue zone.  If you want to be a peer rather than part of the opennic 
> structure then you must separate your connection entirely.  The easiest way 
> to do this would be to either keep your records under .o (for example, 
> *.glue.o), or create a new TLD for that purpose (for example, .modern).  
> The first example is the best, however, because it only requires you and 
> your users to worry about a single zone and simplifies setup for anyone 
> running their own DNS.
> 
>     I would suggest that you also add at least one other authoritative DNS 
> server.  Under a peering arrangement, opennic adds pointers for your 
> zone(s) to our root, but opennic servers no longer directly resolve your 
> zone.  There are different options available here, such as adding multiple 
> IP addresses under NS11 to point to multiple machine -- but we can talk 
> about that later if you decide to proceed.
> 
>     And finally, there needs to be some way that a script can track any 
> service changes you make.  Let's say you decide to add the .modern TLD to 
> contain your infrastructure.  Now you've set an initial expectation that 
> you are running multiple TLDs.  If in the future your group adds another 
> TLD, you don't want to wait around for someone from opennic to see the 
> changes and add your new TLD to our root, instead you want updates to 
> automatically happen.  If you query tlds.opennic.glue you will receive a 
> list of all the TLDs that we currently operate.  Adding a similar TXT 
> record in a known place to your TLD would allow our root zone scripts to 
> see changes and add the appropriate records to the next root zone.  
> Additionally we would need to be able to query a list of your authoritative 
> servers, but if you managed that information under NS11 then I could work 
> with that.  The point is to have a known place to collect this information, 
> and always use that same source to signal your
>     updates.  Again, this is all information that we can work if you decide 
> to switch to a peering arrangement.
> 
> 
> 
>     On 02/19/2017 09:17 AM, Jonah Aragon wrote:
>>     There's been a lot of these "gathering opinion" type posts recently 
>> (one other from myself), but one more can't hurt.
>>
>>     I've been talking with a few people about ".core" and how peering 
>> agreements work in OpenNIC, and I've been thinking that starting something 
>> like that is similar to what I have in mind for ".o" (which I operate, if 
>> you don't already know that). I was thinking that it might work out better 
>> if I transitioned to a mutual peering relationship with OpenNIC, since I 
>> provide a lot of structure and organization likely outside the realm of 
>> most of the TLDs operated here. It would probably work out similar to how 
>> FurNIC currently operates, I still intend to be highly involved with 
>> OpenNIC as I currently am, just with the added separation between OpenNIC 
>> and ModernTLD (.o operations) developments.
>>
>>     Anyways, I was planning on proposing something like officially 
>> designating ModernNIC (new organization) as a mutual peer with OpenNIC, 
>> and we would operate parallel but separate from OpenNIC as a whole. My 
>> networks would provide access to OpenNIC and I would continue operating 
>> ns11 indefinitely which would peer .o on this side of the infrastructure, 
>> and possibly future TLDs if we expand. That would entail control over ".o" 
>> being given to ModernNIC, and we would also have to get the 
>> .modernnic.glue TLD for infrastructure purposes (as I would plan on 
>> operating recursive DNS servers as well).
>>
>>     I'm just in the planning phase for all of this, I don't know where 
>> it'll lead. Just wanted to hear from some members what they'd think. I 
>> wasn't actually here long enough in any active role to know how FurNIC 
>> split from OpenNIC, so I'd also like to hear about that from any members 
>> who were around that long ago.
>>
>>     Overall, not much would really change for most users, it'd just be a 
>> technical difference, and more freedom for us to implement some of our own 
>> policies. (A note on that: it still wouldn't be completely out of OpenNIC 
>> control, you could of course vote to cease peering at any time if you 
>> disagree, but I'd hope it wouldn't come to that, so compromises would 
>> definitely be made).
>>
>>     Jonah
>>
>>     P.S. On an semi-related tangent (that would require its own complete 
>> organization), it would be neat if there was some sort of alt-root 
>> federation of some kind, that could strengthen this entire community as a 
>> whole. It could for example, include OpenNIC and any of our peers, and 
>> even DNS structures like Namecoin/Emercoin. I've heard of some similar 
>> plans but nothing concrete seems to exist at the moment. but anyways, 
>> that's something for another time.
>>
>>
>>     --------
>>     You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>>     You may unsubscribe by emailing 
>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org 
>> <mailto:discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
> 
> 
> 
>     --------
>     You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>     You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org 
> <mailto:discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 

-- 
Best regards

Fusl - root AT meo.ws - http://meo.ws/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature