I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to other TLD's. -Grant On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
Subject: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
I see that LWN has already spotted this; smb will no doubt be pleased to know that the very first reply suggests that RFC 3514 solves the problem much more easily.
In the domain business we don't need a new RFC to know that everything that is evil will end in .evil, and everything else is not evil. No need to define a new bitmask field.
Rubens