Re: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD

[Grant Ridder <shortdudey123 () gmail com>]

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