[Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
Re: [Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
sugarpuff, I't really hard to actually read your paper - id is badly lacking in technical details, and you've posted no code. I can't have a discussion with you about the merits of your tool without an understanding of what exactly it does how it works, and you haven't provided the data needed for that understanding.
Re: [Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
I don't think the value of being able to visually compare data in the blockchain with the synthesized DS record is enough to spend an extra 50% representing the fingerprint.Pagel1928 wrote: If you base64 the data, you can no longer eyeball the fingerprint to compare it to the data directly/other places it is printed out in hex.
I was planning on having a go at this myself, but if you want to do it, I'd be happy to collaborate. The DNS library used by nmcontrol doesn't support DNSSEC verification, so it might be a little tricky. Are you on the namecoin irc channel? Would love to chat about how to implement it.Pagel1928 wrote: Anyway, cool stuff, and thanks for the explaination about how you have set it up I will try and get this working with nmcontrol.
Re: [Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
Well, base64 is still 33% larger than inserting the data raw. If the size of the data is important why does your proposal still use json, and why would you pick base64 over base91 (http://base91.sourceforge.net/)?ryanc wrote:I don't think the value of being able to visually compare data in the blockchain with the synthesized DS record is enough to spend an extra 50% representing the fingerprint.Pagel1928 wrote: If you base64 the data, you can no longer eyeball the fingerprint to compare it to the data directly/other places it is printed out in hex.
I go on IRC sometimes, if you catch me online we can talk about how it could be implemented. Its probably better if you just do it, and I can review the code/changes and test it.ryanc wrote:I was planning on having a go at this myself, but if you want to do it, I'd be happy to collaborate. The DNS library used by nmcontrol doesn't support DNSSEC verification, so it might be a little tricky. Are you on the namecoin irc channel? Would love to chat about how to implement it.Pagel1928 wrote: Anyway, cool stuff, and thanks for the explaination about how you have set it up I will try and get this working with nmcontrol.
Re: [Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
Using base64 instead of hex is easy - lots of languages have it in the standard library now. Base85 or base91 are a lot more complicated to implement. It's a simple way to save some space. Obviously, replacing JSON would allow more compact encodings, but that's fare less simple.Pagel1928 wrote: Well, base64 is still 33% larger than inserting the data raw. If the size of the data is important why does your proposal still use json, and why would you pick base64 over base91 (http://base91.sourceforge.net/)?
-
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
- os: linux
Re: [Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
I believe khal was intending to add gzip encoding support to nmcontrol (that was before he became unavailable). It's also mentioned in passing in some of the Namecoin specs (I think the readme in the GitHub and some part of the .bit 2.0 spec). gzip seems like a decent way of dealing with this as far as I can tell, and it's namespace-neutral... am I mistaken?ryanc wrote:Using base64 instead of hex is easy - lots of languages have it in the standard library now. Base85 or base91 are a lot more complicated to implement. It's a simple way to save some space. Obviously, replacing JSON would allow more compact encodings, but that's fare less simple.Pagel1928 wrote: Well, base64 is still 33% larger than inserting the data raw. If the size of the data is important why does your proposal still use json, and why would you pick base64 over base91 (http://base91.sourceforge.net/)?
Re: [Proposal] Namecoin/DNSSEC integration
Yo ry-c, it's all there now: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschainryanc wrote:sugarpuff, I't really hard to actually read your paper - id is badly lacking in technical details, and you've posted no code. I can't have a discussion with you about the merits of your tool without an understanding of what exactly it does how it works, and you haven't provided the data needed for that understanding.
Would be interested in collaborating with you if you're interested, I am not so against DNSSEC that I think it shouldn't be used at all today. Maybe in the future it won't be necessary, but right now it can be better than nothing (if combined with Namecoin like you're doing, and your own personal server, like DNSChain).