I am the author, I wanted to publish it myself, I didn't expect you had already published it. Thank you very much.
Encountered quite a few problems during the deployment, mainly related to HTTPS certificates.
The longest segment of a domain name is 63 characters. The maximum length of an HTTPS certificate commonName is 64 characters.
This caused Cloudflare, Vercel, and Netlify to be unable to use Let's Encrypt to sign HTTPS certificates (because they used the domain name as the commonName), but Zeabur can use Let's Encrypt to sign HTTPS certificates.
Finally, the Cloudflare certificate was switched to Google Trust Services LLC to successfully sign.
Related certificates can be viewed at https://crt.sh/?q=looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
Don't you have to be a Non-Government Organization, outside China[1], to be eligible for a .ong domain name?
[1] According to https://www.godaddy.com/help/about-ong-domains-41384
Are you accusing them of being a government organzation, or accusing them of being in China?
NGO is a specific type of organization (such as a 501(c)(3) in the US), which would exclude 'a random person registering a domain': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization
That wikipedia article literally says there is "no fixed or formal definition for what NGOs are".
The .ong domain has a policy that has criteria. https://thenew.org/org-people/about-pir/policies/ngo-and-ong...
These are not hard to meet, nor should they be.
But hard for a random url-elongator site to meet.
Clearly this site doesn't qualify.
Operating a publicly available lengthening service is in the public interest and is working for the good of all humans. I used to use hugeurl, but it's no longer in service.
This is an active organization, pursing a mission of longer urls for the good of all. Maybe this sounds frivolous, but there's a lot of frivolous but chartered 501(c)(3)s, and the requirements doesn't specifically require a registrant to be registered as a non-profit or charity or similar (although such a registration is likely to satisfy an audit, tax records showing a lack of profits/retained earnings may be sufficient)
We don't have evidence of how it's operated. Many organizations operate websites without publishing their bylaws. Although, I'll grant that circumstantial evidence seems to be that it's operated by an individual.
You can't see from the site who the owner is. Could be a library. Could be a music club. Could be the Gates foundation. An art collective.
Running the website (in this case, an url elongator) is not required to be an objective in the articles of incorporation.
Nevertheless, an URL elongator strikes me as funny, and providing fun for free is surely for the good of humankind.
The author's X account[1] and associated posts are decidedly Chinese, so it's a valid inquiry.
[1]: https://x.com/ccbikai
https://looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
The GitHub repo linked from the page is owned by an individual (not any kind of structured NGO that would be eligible for this), and they set the location field on their GitHub profile to "NanJing,China" (suggesting that they are located in China).
So happy your reply made me realize that you can purchase longd.ong as a website. https://www.godaddy.com/domainsearch/find?checkAvail=1&tmske...
Just to expand on this, commonName is not at all required in certificates and is basically deprecated/legacy
Letsencrypt does not require you to set it, just subject alternate names, which can be up to 255 characters, but some providers require it for no reason
surprisingly it's been deprecated since RFC 2818 was published 24 years ago.
It's only more recently that browsers and other common software stopped validating it though
Also from 2015:
* https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/BRv1.2.5.pdf#page=17* https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5935369/how-do-common-na...
To further expand, commonName is only deprecated for SSL/TLS server certificates. It is, for example, mandatory for CA certificates and code signing certificates.
I love this.
My first impression was: "What in the QA is this? I wonder what this breaks?"
Understandable, but that's old-school, right? I'm pretty sure the x.509 extensions for SAN cover this now, and I'm kind of surprised that CA's are sticking to the old way of doing this.
Amazing. Will you provide email services? ^^
Let’s Encrypt now (as of 2023) supports having certificates with no CN now, so long domains are fully supported:
https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/simplifying-issuance-for...
The previous workaround available was to include a second, shorter domain on the certificate but that wasn’t always easy or possible.
Can you help me understand what is the point of this project? :)