<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi,<br /><br />Why run a separate process instead of using unix socket or TCP socket?<br /><br />> Since a Namecoin domain can point to IP addresses and ICANN-based DNS<br />> names in addition to onion service names, and a Namecoin domain owner<br />> might wish to switch between these configurations without causing<br />> downtime or forcing their users to change behavior, I recommend against<br />> this. However, see the open question below:<br /><br />> Open question: If a Namecoin domain points to an onion service, end<br />> users might expect encryption to be built in, and this assumption will<br />> be violated if the Namecoin domain switches to using an IP address.<br />> However, Namecoin domains can include TLS fingerprints, which would be<br />> enforced for both the IP address and the onion service address. Is it<br />> sufficient to tell users that TLS is required if they want encryption<br />> for Namecoin-addressed services, or is some additional mechanism<br />> needed here to avoid bad things?<br /><br />How about specifying whether the Namecoin domain should point to .onion<br />or clearnet in the domain? We can require that TLDs for such service<br />must end in either:<br /><br />o o: The name points to a .onion name.<br /><br />o i: The name points to an IP address.<br /><br />o a: The name points to a clearnet domain name.<br /><br />So example.zkeyo points to 66tluooeeyni5x6y.onion. example.zkeyi<br />points to 192.0.2.1 or (and?) 2001:db8::1. example.zkeya points to<br />example.com.<br /><br />Vina Gaff<br /><br /> </body>
</html>