I think that uniqueness is driven by business reasons even more then
technical.
I don't believe in any political decisions without economical interests
behind.
If someone will make a decision to split a DNS space - I don't care.
They are still are interested in to be integrated
in global market.
We even can get an advantage - we will cancel long term tabu on
alternative implementations and deployments.
Of course - it will create image problems for some personalities who
tried to prove the world - that there are no alternatives and personal
problems for some of them who was paid to deploy such system.
Who care - I don't think that this the end of the internet.
Technically it is possible (please, don't think that I am so naive and
know nothing about all riffes/stones).
Historically - we always did our work formally ignoring existence of states.
But if states will make a step - they will put of us in different
dimesion with different rules where our artificial tabu and restrictions
will be broken.
I still believe that we can do it before any state will develop really
working solution which can satisfy their need - the best example China
(don't want detailed their solution - ot you enough clue or no matter)
that already provided as minimum independence - but prefer follow
mainstream yet.
I believe that it is possible to change our minds and to try find how we
can design and deploy really distributed approach which can satisfied
all old raising needs.
regards
Dima Burkov
On 1/5/18 12:03 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
On 1/4/2018 10:21 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I've seen a lot of hand-waving how how a rootless system may work, but
never a detailed technical analysis, covering all the cases, specially
the inconvenient ones (such as .home).
Same issues for alternative (non-DNS) naming systems: most sweep the
problem of consistency under the carpet. (GNUnet is one of the few who
honestly declare that they don't try to have unique names.)
Yes. The key to decentralization is support for non-uniqueness. It
requires one level of indirection from "mnemonic names" such as
"example.com" to "decentralized unique identifiers", typically derived
from public keys. But that still does not work if the resolution system
gives a single answer, as in "this is who the system believes is
example.com". The client would ask for the key, see that it doesn't
match, and be stuck. So the resolution system needs to answer "there are
multiple entities who claim to be example.com, here is a list", and the
client would then have to check which one has the right key. And then of
course there is the question of first contact, when the client does not
know yet the "right key" for example.com. This could be done, but it
would require a huge amount of work -- boiling the ocean comes to mind.
-- Christian Huitema