It is linked off the IANA homepage.
638 karma · joined May 5, 2010
It is linked off the IANA homepage.
There will however be a sea change in the future, ICANN is intending the open up applications for new gTLDs in 2012 that could see hundreds more TLDs added. So if adding the dozen or so new gTLDs in the last 10 years has seemed countless, it will get worse.
Now, if Google starts using .google for its products, and other key services you use every day stop using .com as their primary URLs, I think that mind shift could happen and you could get a very different result.
Fingers crossed they truly have re-architected to something useful. Sure, synching presents some challenges, but it is hard not to wonder how multiple programmers need over 2 years to add their #1 needed feature.
So when you buy a .ME domain, you are subject to the relevant law and regulation of Montenegro, for .CO in Colombia, for .LY in Libya and so forth. If those countries elect to allow registrations outside their borders, that is their choice, but there is no external regulation on how they do that. They are accountable internally to the local Internet community of the country, and the local laws.
ICANN, on the other hand, is responsible for regulating many aspects for generic top-level domains (currently TLDs with 3 or more characters, such as .COM, .NET, .INFO).
2. NSEC3 doesn't allow zone walking. DNSSEC entirely gives you the option as to whether or not to allow zone walking.
3. That is not an artifact of DNSSEC, that is an artifact of the fact software vendors haven't come to consensus on an approach on richening their DNS APIs. Arguably this is a chicken and the egg problem, which is why many have felt it was more important to get zones signed and then software vendors can come to a an improved approved they can test against deployed zones.
4. Many believe DNSSEC will enable SSL to move to a model where certificates are published in the DNS, rather than blessed by third party CAs. Imagine self publishing certificates in the DNS for free rather than paying for costly validation by a company like VeriSign? Once the DNS is secure it provides the same level of trust that SSL vendors provide (i.e. that the domain is registered to you)
But the great thing is, if you don't like DNSSEC, you don't have to use it. End of story. It was designed to allow the DNS to run as-is if you decide not to turn it on.
When I enter Australia in particular they often take it away to study and check, and advise me that I need to get it replaced or it will become a problem. I just had a customs official at Heathrow in the UK tell me the same just last month.
What's more realistic? They want him to replace his tattered passport, or everyone is out to get him?