Klaus Malorny wrote:
>> OK. If it is acceptable for you, allow 1 variant per name and we
>> are done.
>>
>> That people around you are happy with at most 5 or 20 variants
>> does not mean other people needing more variants may suffer
>> from the trade-off.
>>
>> A better solution is never use IDN.
Tony Finch wrote:
>> Perhaps, it is a misunderstanding of a suggestion of rfc974:
>>
>> Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has
>> a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g.
>> REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of
On Thu, 22 May 2014, Joe Abley wrote:
On the other hand, AS 112 *is* special
So, same basic question as before: given that rfc6304bis is already in wglc, do we think
it's worthwhile adding a sentence to the text to request the IANA to add 112 to the
"Special-Purpose AS Numbers" registry?
On 5/22/14, 10:05 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> William and I have heard the suggestion that we should add 112 to
> this registry. A convenient mechanism for doing so would be to add
> some IANA considerations to rfc6304bis.
start from first principles. the resource holder is the DNS-OARC which
has a st
Hi all, again :-)
RFC 7249, fresh off the presses, instantiates an IANA registry for
"Special-Purpose AS Numbers".
The initial registry contents are:
AS Numbers Reason for Reservation
- ---
0
On 22 May 2014, at 12:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On May 22 2014, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> [...]
>> William has reminded me that there has been some work done amongst current
>> AS112 operators to add an IPv6 prefix to the current scheme, and that some
>> AS112 operators have deployed it.
>
> But
On May 22 2014, Joe Abley wrote:
[...]
William has reminded me that there has been some work done amongst current
AS112 operators to add an IPv6 prefix to the current scheme, and that some
AS112 operators have deployed it.
But does this get exercised at all, as long as blackhole-1.iana.org and
Hi all,
We have two documents proceeding (in wglc) together, both relating to AS112
service:
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname
The 6304bis document updates the advice to people running AS112 nodes to
incorporate the new scheme described in the as112-dname document, w
S Moonesamy wrote:
>
> Section 8.7 of RFC 6409 is applicable for mail submission and CNAME.
Whoops, the second paragraph of that section is completely incorrect.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Tyne, Dogger, Fisher, German Bight, Humber: Cyclonic 5 to 7, occasionally gale
8 at fi
On 22.05.2014 03:18, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Klaus Malorny wrote:
Sure, but I am talking of about 5-20 variants per name, not all that are
combinatorially possible.
The idea is that the registrant simply decides which of the variants he
wants to have included with his original name. Those would
Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> > See RFC 1123 section 5.2.2. This requirement was dropped in RFC 2821 and
> > successors.
>
> Perhaps, it is a misunderstanding of a suggestion of rfc974:
>
>Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has
>a alias and the alias is listed in t
In message <537d9d47.3000...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> (2014/05/22 14:00), S Moonesamy wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > At 10:43 21-05-2014, John Levine wrote:
> >> See RFC 1123, section 5.2.2.
> >
> > Tony Finch already commented about RFC 1123. That section has been
> > repl
12 matches
Mail list logo
