News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by extraduder_ire on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @07:28AM (#38362716)
I'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.

Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by nine_k on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @08:17AM (#38363235)
It 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.

Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by pavon on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @11:12AM (#38365581)
If I understand they want a (globally unique, secure) GNS name and a (globally unique, human friendly) traditional DNS name which acts as an alias for the GNS name via CNAME.

This can work, and sounds like a good compromise in that it lets machines and people who care deeply about security use your secure name (which is more portable than an IP address), while providing a human friendly name for people who don't care and just want things to work.

Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by nine_k on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @11:37AM (#38365965)
But what's the point? Federation, I suppose?

Because if globally unique, human-readable DNS still works, I see no point in migrating off it. If the point is smoother migration, then we should start forgetting about human-readability, because it's going to disappear anyway.

Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by Karrot_Kream on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @04:35PM (#38370583)
TLS certs without having to buy a domain? Create a GNS domain, set a LEHO record with the necessary Host name, and make your cert based on that? Obviously you'll need a CA that's willing to issue certs for GNS LEHO names, but that way you can use the current TLS CA system to a domain without having to actually spend money on one. Alternatively, have the CA issue wildcard certs for zTLDs and then you can manage your own zTLD without issue.
Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by nine_k on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @05:37PM (#38386165)
Letsencrypt allows to produce TLS certificates for free, under a reasonable, globally trusted CA.

If we wanted to go away from centralization here, that would require a serious breakthrough, the magnitude of Bitcoin.

Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by Karrot_Kream on Wednesday November 22, 2023 @07:54PM (#38387689)
Sure but that's contingent on owning or being able to host something under a domain.
Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by schanzen on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @11:17AM (#38365651)
These are all valid deployment questions, which we tried to address in Appendix A.

In a nutshell, we expect that resolvers would ship with a (large) set of default "suffix-to-zone" mappings, that can be overridden by the user to provide a usable and convenient out-of-the box experience. Not that "we expect" means that this would be the ideal scenario, not something to expect when installing our reference implementation right now.

Re:RFC 9498 on the GNU Name System by extraduder_ire on Tuesday November 28, 2023 @08:53AM (#38445668)
Would <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.