News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:This Weekend's DDoS Attack and What's in a (C)Name? by Libre___ on Saturday July 08, 2017 @05:06PM (#14727205)
The main thing that I dislike with the no-www trend is that it is hierarchically wrong:

. is ICANN root

.com is VeriSign

example.com is Example Company LLC

www.example.com, subdivision.example.com, www2.example.com are all services, subdelegations and individual hosts within example.com

I realize this is a rapidly declining way to view the DNS but it is nevertheless the way it was designed.

Re:This Weekend's DDoS Attack and What's in a (C)Name? by petee on Saturday July 08, 2017 @06:08PM (#14727433)
its not hierarchically wrong; services never required their own subdomain - example.com is just as valid a host as www.example.com

sure it is helpful for organization, but when was the last time you used ssh.example.com?

Re:This Weekend's DDoS Attack and What's in a (C)Name? by Libre___ on Saturday July 08, 2017 @07:06PM (#14727622)
Don't get me wrong - it's in no way illegal to use A/AAAA-pointers in your zone root.

RFC 1034[0] however, argues for a tree-based structure and lays emphasis on the value of branching. It being 'wrong' might have been too strong a description, how about it being 'improper'?

When I've seen SSH access being offered as a network service and not as a means to administrate other services on a network it's often been under names such as 'shell.example.com' - not exactly your 'ssh' label but an approximation.

0. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1034

Re:This Weekend's DDoS Attack and What's in a (C)Name? by posterboy on Sunday July 09, 2017 @06:32AM (#14729143)
Naturally, Example LLC will serve html on port 80, because that's Hypertext. And while that does not have to redirect to the www homepage, there is hardly any other reasonable alternative I could think of. Likewise, I think I read here, a bare tld domain could resolve, too, I just don't remember what it would or should resolve to.