<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>I think it's time to point out that hierarchical and non-hierarchical DNS are not mutually exclusive. If any link in your non-hierarchical DNS checks the hierarchical system, then you will get results from it.<br><br>Also, I am curious about the claim that OpenID relies on DNS being hierarchical. I thought it just depended on DNS existing and being trusted?<br><br>All of that said, my vote is for a non-hierarchical DNS with an optional (non-repeated) bridge to the existing DNS system. I would also suggest enabling that bridge in the default configuration, as most users in the short term will require it.<br><br>- Avery<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"paxcoder" <paxcoder@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, October 7, 2010 6:42:11 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Finding a good place to start<br><br>On 10/07/2010 11:17 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:<br>> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:13:24AM +0530, Abhishek Dasgupta wrote:<br>>> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:<br>>> [snip]<br>>>> As I see it, this is the priorities:<br>>>> 1) put together a (virtual) core system<br>>>> 2) embed the system in small cheap iron<br>>>> 3) make the box dead simple to configure/personalize<br>>><br>>> So, essentially 3) is the only non-trivial part, right now.<br>><br>> Apparently not so trivial that anyone has taken the time and attention <br>> to do 1) or 2) yet!<br><br>My sentiments exactly. :-/<br><br>> If you mean to say that we have decided to not use DNS then I disagree.<br><br>Dehierarchicalization being a goal is a fact, there's nothing to decide <br>there: We can only kick it out if we decide we (well, you people) won't <br>respect it. I hate what is sometimes done to Debian's community's <br>agreement, and I'd hate to see us make the same compromises. Having an <br>option is fine, but settling for lesser solutions is not what FB is <br>about. It really isn't, and if you can't see that, I can't help you see <br>that any more than I already did.<br>However, DNS is something so common and perhaps - at this stage - <br>unavoidable, so I don't think there's any point in suggesting to keep it <br>out - disconnected FB is of no use. But I would have it off by default <br>wherever possible, just to keep reminding us where we're heading. It <br>would hopefully be disposed of in due time (this is a DNS exception, it <br>does not apply to other centralized things we can do without). In other <br>words, build this with that in mind, as if your DNS records will <br>disappear tomorrow, and/or an alternative will become available.<br><br>I hope we won't wait that long, there are people who seem to know things <br>about the subject, perhaps there's someone working on this as we speak?<br><br>> I certainly am interested in relaxing dependency on all things <br>> central, including DNS.<br><br>Good, what are we fighting about then? I wanted us to agree about our <br>goal: Choosing distributed services *over* centralized ones is an <br>imperative - wherever possible.<br><br>I'll continue giving you a hard time,<br>--Luka Marčetić<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Freedombox-discuss mailing list<br>Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org<br>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss<br></div></body></html>