--On lördag, lördag 7 mar 2009 16.32.07 -1000 David Conrad
wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> Does not ISO3166 solve that problem for us with regards to allowed
>> characters in the TLD label?
>
> Nope. ISO-3166 merely defines the list IANA uses when an entity on the
>
On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Does not ISO3166 solve that problem for us with regards to allowed
characters in the TLD label?
Nope. ISO-3166 merely defines the list IANA uses when an entity on
the ISO-3166 list requests the delegation of a top-level domain.
ISO-3166 is ir
--On lördag, lördag 7 mar 2009 10.04.30 -1000 David Conrad
wrote:
>> Without knowing the policy for the 2nd level domain, I think it is
>> very hard to say whether a given TLD level is safe or not.
>
> Unfortunately, as you're aware, policy at the second level varies over
> time and there are
SM wrote:
> The topic discussed in draft-liman-tld-names-00 has two angles, the
> application angle and the DNS angle. The "requirements" can be
> different depending on which angle we are looking at. From Section
> 11 of RFC 2181:
I'd like to support this distinction and would suggest we
On 7 mar 2009, at 21.04, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
The problem with writing exact objective rules is that with the
6000 languages, and enormous number of codepoints, it is extremely
hard to create say a regular expression that we know is
_absol
Patrik,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
The problem with writing exact objective rules is that with the 6000
languages, and enormous number of codepoints, it is extremely hard
to create say a regular expression that we know is _absolutely_
correct regarding separating th
On 7 mar 2009, at 18.14, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
If you want a TLD, you tell me that you will not create any harm.
You do, you get the domain, things go poof, then you did not do
your homework beforehand.
So, just to be clear, you would disa
At 07:01 07-03-2009, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the worry here: the document reads perfectly
clearly, to my eyes, that other organizations may have something to
say about actual TLDs; the draft is only about the _technical_
specification of what may be in the TLD.
I don't
At 12:07 PM +0100 3/7/09, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>I think regarding digits in TLDs (or rather, non-letters), this is the right
>time when one definitely should have the basic rule to not "add something
>until it breaks", but instead, "only add things we do know will not create any
>harm".
Yes,
Patrik,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
If you want a TLD, you tell me that you will not create any harm.
You do, you get the domain, things go poof, then you did not do your
homework beforehand.
So, just to be clear, you would disallow new top-level domains unless
you
> does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
Go for it!
I claim ^S
jaap
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 7 mar 2009, at 16.25, David Conrad wrote:
Define "harm".
Here is a link to one of the blog pages of mine that show in a
filesystem what I think is "harm" if we allow mix of codepoints etc
that give same result(s) for domain names.
http://stupid.domain.name/node/681
I claim that is "
On 7 mar 2009, at 16.25, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something
if not proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets add
something only if proven that it absolutely not does create an
Patrik,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something if
not proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets add
something only if proven that it absolutely not does create any
harm", and then have the people th
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 10:58:58PM -0800, SM wrote:
> The title of the document is "Top Level Domain Name Specification". If
> it is about gTLDs, some may see this as a matter for some other
> organization instead of the IETF. Section 4 of the draft requests IANA
> to change its registration
On 7 mar 2009, at 15.31, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
na... the ^B. is for the visually impared. the DNS can talk!
(and it does meet your "explict directionality" concern.)
If you with ^B talk about U+0002, then it does not fulfil the explicit
directionality requirements as it is B
na... the ^B. is for the visually impared. the DNS can talk!
(and it does meet your "explict directionality" concern.)
actually, I have a fundamental disagreement w/ your logic. I think
that your general rule of "only add if proven to create no harm" or
infering "dangerous" - are on the sl
On 7 mar 2009, at 14.56, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
Go for it!
But I think foo^H^H^Hbar is more interesting as a label. Maybe with a
^G in there as well.
Patrik
--bill
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:07:01PM +0100, Patrik Fdltst
does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
--bill
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:07:01PM +0100, Patrik Fdltstrvm wrote:
> On 6 mar 2009, at 21.54, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> >And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the
> >heart of the problem.
> >
> >I'm sure Patrik is ac
On 6 mar 2009, at 21.54, Edward Lewis wrote:
And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the
heart of the problem.
I'm sure Patrik is active in the IDNABIS WG. So if it is an issue,
he'd have spoken about it.
Yes, active there, following this list.
Still, seriously, al
Lectori Salutem,
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-01 has just been posted. I realize that
this is not according to the rule to not submit 01 drafts shortly
after a version 00 has been submitted and would understand if it would
therefore not be able to feature the agenda.
While draft-ietf-dns
21 matches
Mail list logo
