<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">There are good reasons for using an append only log as the basis for a name registration. See for example:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><a href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hallambaker-mesh-callsign-00.html">Mathematical Mesh 3.0 Part VII: Mesh Callsign Service (ietf.org)</a><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">If you start with an authenticated append only log, you get the benefits of secure by default. The log is the authoritative source of name registrations. If you require registration of a public key at the same time, you can make all registry operations transparent and auditable.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">But</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">You can't graft an append only log onto a registry post facto. And certainly not as a third party effort. Who is to say any given blockchain is the ground truth? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">The chief limitation in the current DNS is that the running costs are ruinous as the registry is required to support resolution which exposes it to abuse. 99% of traffic to core DNS is abuse and misconfigured systems. The root operators, VeriSign etc, are unable to respond to the abuse except by building out absurd levels of excess capacity. As a consequence, DNS names must be rented rather than sold. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Finally, any system that builds on any infrastructure related to a purported crypto-currency is going to be unacceptable to many. I for one am fed up of being told BitCoin doesn't generate vast amounts of CO2, doesn't provide the payments infrastructure for ransomware, child abuse etc. I am fed up of the gaslighting denial of the facts.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:38 AM Vittorio Bertola via dns-operations <<a href="mailto:dns-operations@dns-oarc.net">dns-operations@dns-oarc.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Vittorio Bertola <<a href="mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com" target="_blank">vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com</a>><br>To: InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <<a href="mailto:marco.schrieck@internetx.com" target="_blank">marco.schrieck@internetx.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net" target="_blank">dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net</a><br>Cc: <br>Bcc: <br>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:32:09 +0200 (CEST)<br>Subject: Re: [dns-operations] Blockchain Address Transparency with DNS<br><br>
<br>
> Il 22/07/2021 21:36 InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <<a href="mailto:marco.schrieck@internetx.com" target="_blank">marco.schrieck@internetx.com</a>> ha scritto:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hi Eduardo,<br>
> <br>
> Maybe you take a look on this. its is something similar:<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mayrhofer-did-dns/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mayrhofer-did-dns/</a><br>
<br>
That draft associates a hostname with a URI pointing to a DID document, i.e. the identifier for a digital identity, rather than with a blockchain address in general. At the ID4me project (<a href="http://www.id4me.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.id4me.org</a>) we are also working on a way to store a DID document directly within a DNS record, saving the HTTP connection. However, I am not sure whether Eduardo's use case is about identities or more general than that.<br>
<br>
I would have comments on Eduardo's proposal (e.g. in the case of the TXT record I would recommend the use of a specific underscored prefix) but possibly this is a discussion for DNSOP, rather than for DNS-OARC.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange<br>
<a href="mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com" target="_blank">vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com</a> <br>
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy<br>
<br><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Vittorio Bertola via dns-operations <<a href="mailto:dns-operations@dns-oarc.net" target="_blank">dns-operations@dns-oarc.net</a>><br>To: InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <<a href="mailto:marco.schrieck@internetx.com" target="_blank">marco.schrieck@internetx.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net" target="_blank">dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net</a><br>Cc: <br>Bcc: <br>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:32:09 +0200 (CEST)<br>Subject: Re: [dns-operations] Blockchain Address Transparency with DNS<br>_______________________________________________<br>
dns-operations mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net" target="_blank">dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations</a><br>
</blockquote></div>