-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" wrote:
>
>> We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making.
>> Let's engineer a solution here that's more appealing than
>> squatting. For my money, alt-TLD looks about right.
>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Domain Name System (DNS) Cookies
Authors : Donald E. Eastlake
Hi Ed,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:26:43PM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to the use the path of least resistance - e.g., use names
> that syntactically are DNS names
I note that the Subject: line of your note still contains a vestigial
reference to the thread I started recently on t
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Warren Kumari wrote:
I have been planning to write a draft to address 1 by having validators send
the DS of known TA's in an edns0 option code. This info, could then be
logged by the authoritative nameservers.
Inserting it in edns0 implies (I think) that all of the queries
... and this was only intended to go to Richard and Ed, not waste the
entire WGs time with my bizarre imaginings...
W
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>> On 7/1/1
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" wrote:
>>
>>>We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's
>>>engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. Fo
>+many to what Warren says.
>
>We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's
>engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. For my
>money, alt-TLD looks about right.
I agree. On the other hand, since we are not the tsars of the
Internet, it is fairly likely
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" wrote:
>
>>We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's
>>engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. For my
>>money, alt-TLD looks about right.
>
> How does that he
On 7/1/15, 14:26, "Richard Barnes" wrote:
>We do our best work when we do engineering, not rule-making. Let's
>engineer a solution here that's more appealing than squatting. For my
>money, alt-TLD looks about right.
How does that help this:
>>On 7/1/15, 1:47, st...@i2pmail.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> Ed,
>>
>> First-- apologies for the misunderstanding.
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>> Trying to be more clear, I have in the past imagined that today some
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Ed,
>
> First-- apologies for the misunderstanding.
>
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Trying to be more clear, I have in the past imagined that today someone is
>> inventing a new communications technology, in 6 month
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Domain Name System (DNS) Cookies
Authors : Donald E. Eastlake
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:08, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
First-- apologies for the misunderstanding.
It seems appropriate for someone at this point to make a joke about
onion leaving a bad taste in the mouth. But not me. I'm not that guy.
Joe
___
DNSOP mai
On 7/1/15, 10:08, "Suzanne Woolf" wrote:
>
>But I don't think it's impossible that we'll be able to provide guidance,
>such that developers who follow it are reasonably sure of avoiding the
>various types of collisions and ambiguities we're concerned about-- and
>such that there's a clear basis fo
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Olafur. The Workign Group should discuss this as it was originally
> planned to go into a Working Group Last Call. It can still be taken in this
> direction.
>
> tim
>
>
Tim
We request a WGLC on the document
Olafur
Ed,
First-- apologies for the misunderstanding.
On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> Trying to be more clear, I have in the past imagined that today someone is
> inventing a new communications technology, in 6 months will need to cobble
> an identifier space and in 2 years the IE
Thanks Olafur. The Workign Group should discuss this as it was
originally planned to go into a Working Group Last Call. It can still
be taken in this direction.
tim
On 7/1/15 8:52 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
This version is a final version from the editors.
We explicitly punt on explai
Dan,
This looks as though it will be a really interesting exercise. I will be there
in spirit (and in corporeal form Sunday afternoon).
--
Glen Wiley
Principal Engineer
Verisign, Inc.
(571) 230-7917
http://vbsdcon.com
A5E5 E373 3C75 5B3E 2E24
6A0F DC65 2354 9946 C63A
From: Dan York mailto:y..
(no hats, for the moment)
Ed,
It seems to me that this is exactly the issue: we've already had multiple
drafts requesting new entries in the special use names registry, and expect
more. Your note sounds as if you're fairly sanguine about "a stream of
unpredictable requests"; however, based on
This version is a final version from the editors.
We explicitly punt on explaining how to overcome the situation when a
´proxy/forwarder’ “randomly” sends queries to
Resolvers with different capabilities.
Olafur
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 8:49 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Inter
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : DNSSEC Roadblock Avoidance
Authors : Wes Hardaker
Olafur
On 7/1/15, 1:47, "DNSOP on behalf of str4d" wrote:
>.onion and .i2p (and to my knowledge, the other proposed P2P-Names
>TLDs too) have to conform to DNS rules in order to be usable in legacy
>applications that expect domain names.
I'd been told that "onion." was a one-time thing, that in the futu
DNSOP participants,
Will you be in Prague on the weekend before IETF 93? (Or could you get there?)
A number of us will be involved with the hackathon happening on Saturday and
Sunday:
https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/93hackathon
Our intent is to work on some tools/services r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:43:42AM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> I'm not aware of "the rule" that declares Onion names as part of
>> the domain name space. Not an argument, just a data point. I've
>> always heard, and have
24 matches
Mail list logo
