How to "fairly" distribute names is orthogonal problem to the one "how to stay on the same page" for already registered names.
How to "fairly" distribute names is orthogonal problem to the one "how to stay on the same page" for already registered names. There are essentially two ways: 1) first come, first grab. Or 2) have a central bootstrapping party that will sign off "valid" registrations. You cannot register whatever you want, but after you got your name, you can trade it freely without anyone censoring you. I was not saying that new system must necessarily map current DNS owners to new DNS 2.0 owners. These could exist in parallel. My point is to have secure "TLS with names" you must have something like what I describe, otherwise it's a waste of time. Social issues of fairness etc are secondary to the security of addressing names and servers. (Although, they could be real obstacles to adoption, I don't deny that.)
Posted by oleganza on Oct 27, 2014, 2:56 PM
Tags
Related issues
- (1) Because it doesn't actually solve the problem.
- Every time fossil comes up, I hear this same issue - "why is there no rebase?" And honestly, I've never been able to get this argument.
- My biggest problem with running local LLMs on my M4 Max/128GB RAM is the prefill latency.
- Biggest problem with httpx I see is authors sanity https://github.com/encode/httpx/discussions/3784 .
- There aren't many situations today that make one think: Why doesn't this business have a website?
- > IAM can stay MS That's leaving the most critical component still with a US company.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Network)
(1) Because it doesn't actually solve the problem.
Every time fossil comes up, I hear this same issue - "why is there no rebase?" And honestly, I've never been able to get this argument.
My biggest problem with running local LLMs on my M4 Max/128GB RAM is the prefill latency.
Biggest problem with httpx I see is authors sanity https://github.com/encode/httpx/discussions/3784 .
There aren't many situations today that make one think: Why doesn't this business have a website?
> IAM can stay MS That's leaving the most critical component still with a US company.
I am very petty about this one bug and have a very old axe to grind that this reminded me of!
Not just the edge router.
How to "fairly" distribute names is orthogonal problem to the one "how to stay on the same page" for already registered names.
How to "fairly" distribute names is orthogonal problem to the one "how to stay on the same page" for already registered names. There are essentially two ways: 1) first come, first grab. Or 2) have a central bootstrapping party that will sign off "valid" registrations. You cannot register whatever you want, but after you got your name, you can trade it freely without anyone censoring you. I was not saying that new system must necessarily map current DNS owners to new DNS 2.0 owners. These could exist in parallel. My point is to have secure "TLS with names" you must have something like what I describe, otherwise it's a waste of time. Social issues of fairness etc are secondary to the security of addressing names and servers. (Although, they could be real obstacles to adoption, I don't deny that.)
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.