On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, P Vixie wrote:
> 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 wh
I don't understand this entire debate. I am sorry. Can somebody please
frame it?
My understanding is that if there is a rightside dot... that the domain is
"fully qualified".
I know for a fact that, even with the foregoing, if somebody locally
wants to rewrite a domain there is nothing that is go
This thread is becoming tiresome. Could those who want to continue
what ICANN should and shouldn't do about making rules for dotless
domains, please take the discussion elsewhere? Thanks. ICANN is in the
middle of a public comment period on dotless domains (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public
+1
The discussion here has been enlightening, but if you want your thoughts to
have any impact you should submit a public comment if you haven't done so
already
Regards
Michele
Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
http://Blacknight.tel
Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
On 23 Sep 2012, at 10:40,
On 23 Sep 2012, at 09:38, Fred Morris wrote:
I don't understand this entire debate. I am sorry. Can somebody please
frame it?
Read the SSAC report: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf
.
So what, exactly, *is* the security implication?
There are many. You even men
On 9/23/12 1:49 AM, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote:
> The discussion here has been enlightening, but if you want your thoughts
> to have any impact you should submit a public comment if you haven't done
> so already
Well, yes in theory, but having submitted comments for over a decade, the
ef
On 09/21/2012 15:46, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> 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 operati
On 09/21/2012 20:22, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> 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 exam
In message <505fd46b.6070...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 09/21/2012 20:22, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > 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 sce
On 09/23/2012 21:07, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It does if "http://myname"; goes to a local machine one day and the
> next day it goes to a tld the next day because "myname" was added
> to the root zone and that zone has A, or SRV records which
> will be the case if resolvers/browsers are "fixed"
On 24/09/2012, at 06.07, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Why
> should I have to change my usage because some jolly come lately
> with $20 can buy a TLD.
Somehow, having the safety and consistent of one's network/users depend on an
external policy outside my control makes me very, very uncomfortable
In message <505fe0c6.50...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> On 09/23/2012 21:07, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > It does if "http://myname"; goes to a local machine one day and the
> > next day it goes to a tld the next day because "myname" was added
> > to the root zone and that zone has A,
Logically, shouldn't a right-side dot fix all of this?
If I browse to:
http://myname./
I would expect to get a gTLD, as the right-side dot represents the root.
If I were to browse to:
http://myname/
I would expect to hit my local definitions, then search domain, then
fail or hit the browser sea
13 matches
Mail list logo
