[153180] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Grant Ridder)
Thu May 31 20:44:24 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k3_7CkPtxgF_FqVZZ7Z-c_fRwtmmsPQKu9T=4qb6nUfGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:43:43 -0500
From: Grant Ridder <shortdudey123@gmail.com>
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
other TLD's.
-Grant
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
> >
> >> Subject: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
> >
> > I see that LWN has already spotted this; smb will no doubt be pleased to
> > know that the very first reply suggests that RFC 3514 solves the problem
> > much more easily.
>
> In the domain business we don't need a new RFC to know that everything
> that is evil will end in .evil, and everything else is not evil. No
> need to define a new bitmask field.
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
