This is something of a placeholder until I have time to fully research the issue/Ryan wants to step in and comment.
Name Epochs allow security conscious users to link trust of a name to the ownership of that name. Thus, if a name is stolen or accidentally allowed to expire, properly configured software won't automatically trust the new owner.
While originally formulated in response to concerns about a lack of revocation with identity systems, this is relevant to domain names as well. The simplest syntax adds an integer before the domain: example.1.bit.
I doubt that this should be included in the Domain Name IFA-0001, but we should probably prohibit numeric domains and possibly prohibit even starting domains with a number.
I believe that the documentation should include the following warning:
There is a large body of empirical evidence that users cannot be relied upon to validate the URI and the primary use case for (domain) epochs is for security conscious configurations.
This is something of a placeholder until I have time to fully research the issue/Ryan wants to step in and comment.
Name Epochs allow security conscious users to link trust of a name to the ownership of that name. Thus, if a name is stolen or accidentally allowed to expire, properly configured software won't automatically trust the new owner.
While originally formulated in response to concerns about a lack of revocation with identity systems, this is relevant to domain names as well. The simplest syntax adds an integer before the domain:
example.1.bit.I doubt that this should be included in the Domain Name IFA-0001, but we should probably prohibit numeric domains and possibly prohibit even starting domains with a number.
I believe that the documentation should include the following warning: