Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
> gentlefolk, i call your attention to this:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
>
> i've already explained as best i can:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110620_domain_names_without_dots/
>
> but the icann call for
Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
>
> those are country code top level domains. cctld's enjoy national
> sovereignty -- it is not up to ietf or icann or anybody else to tell
> them what they can't do. thus they are unaffected by icann policy, and
> their choices cannot guide our discussions of icann polic
> But surely they can be used to illustrate the issues that this will
> cause with applications...
perhaps narrowing core technologies to the intersection of the un-flawed
abilities of all applications will be an increasingly narrowing path
which leads no place pleasant.
randy
___
Randy Bush (randy) writes:
> > But surely they can be used to illustrate the issues that this will
> > cause with applications...
>
> perhaps narrowing core technologies to the intersection of the un-flawed
> abilities of all applications will be an increasingly narrowing path
> which leads no pla
>> perhaps narrowing core technologies to the intersection of the
>> un-flawed abilities of all applications will be an increasingly
>> narrowing path which leads no place pleasant.
> True. I'm not particularly against the idea of using "dotless"
> domains, but we know who's going to live with the
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12:42AM +0200,
Phil Regnauld wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
> Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
> that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Worked fine with Chromium and lynx, despite the ICANN FUD.
_
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:29:35AM +0200,
Phil Regnauld wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> I'm not particularly against the idea of using "dotless"
> domains, but we know who's going to live with the support
> questions when users start complaining. Paul's piece on
>
On 21 Sep 2012, at 09:40, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
For the consultation mentioned in Paul Vixie's original message, the
issue is not whether one-label domains are a good idea or not but
whether ICANN has really nothing better to do than to add yet another
stupid regulation in an already very t
On 21 Sep 2012, at 09:28, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Worked fine with Chromium and lynx, despite the ICANN FUD.
Not for me with any of the browsers I had available:
Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Camino, or lynx.
YMMV, I guess ...
/Niall
___
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
> that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
B
___
Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:07:23 +0200 (CEST)
schrieb "Bart Smit" :
> Phil Regnauld wrote:
> > Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
> > that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
>
> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
> an
Le 21/09/2012 10:07, Bart Smit a écrit :
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly
On 21 Sep 2012, at 10:07, Bart Smit wrote:
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing
scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome,
safari,
and opera on osx) handle this
Bart Smit (bit) writes:
> Phil Regnauld wrote:
> > Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
> > that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
>
> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
> and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
> It would be nice if the IAB or IETF could issue some sort of "RRs in
> single-label domain names considered harmful" document.
or "rrs in single-label domain names are legal. applications should be
able to handle them."
randy
___
dns-operations mai
Randy Bush (randy) writes:
> > It would be nice if the IAB or IETF could issue some sort of "RRs in
> > single-label domain names considered harmful" document.
>
> or "rrs in single-label domain names are legal. applications should be
> able to handle them."
What's the path of least re
>>> It would be nice if the IAB or IETF could issue some sort of "RRs in
>>> single-label domain names considered harmful" document.
>> or "rrs in single-label domain names are legal. applications should
>> be able to handle them."
> What's the path of least resistance ?
putting mrs. greenberg in
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Bart Smit wrote:
> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
> and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
I might be a bit daft, but there's a very big difference in my
techy-education with typing in URL's versus the regular people who
just type
It probably depends on how your O/S handles the resolution - typically
Windows systems will try and resolve a dot-less name using a local LAN
broadcast looking typically for a PC on the same LAN segment by that
name - but it will depend on your config (e.g. domain controller or not,
LAN Manager
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12:42AM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
> > gentlefolk, i call your attention to this:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
> >
> > i've already explained as best i can:
> >
> > http://www.cir
I'm on Randy on this... if we restrict the things protocols can / should
do to the lowest level of what applications support, we'll be empty
handed pretty quickly.
On 9/21/12 9:20 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> It would be nice if the IAB or IETF could issue some sort of "RRs in
>> single-label domain
At 10:28 +0200 9/21/12, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12:42AM +0200,
Phil Regnauld wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already
existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Worked fine
On 21 September 2012 13:44, JP Velders wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Bart Smit wrote:
>
>> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
>> and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
>
> I might be a bit daft, but there's a very big difference in my
> techy-education with
> Out of 315 TLDs, there are already 17 dotless ones: [list omitted].
This fails to observe the existence of at least two label allocation regimes,
one contemporanious with publication of rfc1591 (1994) and one or more that
were introduced subsequently, by government contractors.
As Paul observ
On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
>> gentlefolk, i call your attention to this:
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
>>
>> i've already explained as best i can:
>>
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
> In Safari, http://dk./ "worked" while http://dk/ didn't.
Yes. I was going to point that out: the rightmost dot. Traditionally
without the rightmost dot is a "resource" or "relative" (or whatever you
want to call it) and the rightmost dot makes it a /fully
Stephane,
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> I'm not particularly against the idea of using "dotless"
>> domains, but we know who's going to live with the support
>> questions when users start complaining. Paul's piece on
>> CircleID sums it up nicely.
> > Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
> > that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
>
> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
> and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
http://dk/ doesn't work particularly well on my
On 21 Sep 2012 at 10:28, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12:42AM +0200,
> Phil Regnauld wrote
> a message of 23 lines which said:
>
> > Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
> > that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
On 09/21/2012 11:33 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
>>> that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
>>
>> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
>> and opera on osx) handle this perfectly
On 2012-09-21 1:24 PM, Carlos M. martinez wrote:
> I'm on Randy on this... if we restrict the things protocols can / should
> do to the lowest level of what applications support, we'll be empty
> handed pretty quickly.
i have two observations.
first, this discussion isn't fruitful and won't be. t
2. We are not limited by the status quo. While the _current_ state of
things is that we cannot guarantee that single labels will work reliably
in all cases, those who are putting very large sums of money into the
process of acquiring and operating these domains (especially the .brand
domains) wi
David Conrad (drc) writes:
> As documented in SAC053 (and discussed on this list), weird shit happens
> because many software developers assumed that a domain name has a dot in it.
> Given there is one root and that pretty much everybody is dependent upon it,
> you probably want to minimize the
On 2012-09-21 11:28 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> I suspect that a non negligible number of gTLD applicants *expect* to
> be able to use http://wibble/ and mailto:bob@wibble
and yet, the applicant guidebook, section 2.2.3.3, is pretty clear. so,
let's all reinforce what every applicant wa
> first, this discussion isn't fruitful and won't be. the place to send
> your comments is:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
i did
> second, icann isn't able to set tech policy. what they are able to do is
> operate the root zone in a way that ke
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On 2012-09-21 11:28 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
>> I suspect that a non negligible number of gTLD applicants *expect* to
>> be able to use http://wibble/ and mailto:bob@wibble
>
> and yet, the applicant guidebook, section 2.2.3.3, is p
On 2012-09-22 12:23 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> second, icann isn't able to set tech policy. what they are able to do is
>> operate the root zone in a way that keeps the internet stable, secure,
>> scalable, and safe. to that end, prohibiting anything other than NS and
>> SOA in the apex of a gTLD
>
Randy,
On Sep 21, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> first, this discussion isn't fruitful and won't be. the place to send
>> your comments is:
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
> i did
Thanks!
> is outside the root zone and none of their d
> I suspect that a non negligible number of gTLD applicants *expect* to
> be able to use http://wibble/ and mailto:bob@wibble
and they probably have the leverage to get the significant applications
fixed. one of the few benefits of the gtld st00pidity is that microsoft
might actually fix lookout
To change the internet so that foo@Microsoft has universal not local meaning
would require action by many millions of parties not just by Microsoft.
Anyone who did not make the change would be at risk from the new behavior and
new content by others while still being compatible with the specs the
On 22/09/2012, at 6:51 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 11:33 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
>>>
>>> Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, ch
> This conversation feels surreal.
it took several years before sizeof("label") <= sizeof("arpa") limit was
removed.
but speaking of surreal -- .museum (possessed of a label longer than arpa)
started on a desktop. the dag performance requirements for registry operators
are more than the contractu
On 2012-09-22 1:50 AM, e...@abenaki.wabanaki.net wrote:
> ... finding actionable harm in a restriction on zone data that
> restricts only private persons who intentionally propose to offer an
> withdrawn hostname semantic, and only through a few ports and single
> transport protocol, while overlook
43 matches
Mail list logo
