On 4 Jul 2015, at 1:56, manning wrote:
> So I -think- we are on the same page here, although I would replace your use
> of the phrase, “name space” with domain. We have empirical evidence of
> multiple domains using the same name space.
> (Fred Baker persuaded me that there is a single name spa
>I guess my question here is, what would prevent House Finch Feathers OY from
>applying
>for the DNS(IN) string ONION from ICANN because they want that as a TLD in the
>IN
>class?
At the moment, nothing.
Remember, we also have a draft about .HOME and .CORP and .MAIL. ICANN
says they're not p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 7/3/2015 4:56 PM, manning wrote:
> Borrowing a snippet from the operational community (h/t Chris
> Morrow). If one replaces “subnet” with “domain”…
Indeed -- subnet <--> domain do not map properly in the current landscap
e.
- - ferg
- --
Pau
Borrowing a snippet from the operational community (h/t Chris Morrow).
If one replaces “subnet” with “domain”…
——
this is really a form of: "A subnet should contain all things of a
like purpose/use."
that way you don't have to compromise and say: "Well... tcp/443 is OK
for ABC units but deadly f
On 3 Jul 2015, at 20:11, manning wrote:
> I guess my question here is, what would prevent House Finch Feathers OY from
> applying for the DNS(IN) string ONION from ICANN because they want that as a
> TLD in the IN class?
Nothing, if that is the goal, which I claim it is not.
The goal is to ens
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Shane Kerr wrote:
I don't think the authority server ever needs to actually send the new
data, only to request that the resolvers remove entries from cache
(including negative entries). The resolver can re-fetch records and
cache them normally at that point.
How will this w
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:11 PM, manning wrote:
>
> On 3July2015Friday, at 9:26, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
>>
>> It does seem to me that an important feature here is that "TLD" as we're
>> using it is "name in the root zone (or root zone space), to be managed
>> within a context that assumes DNS pr
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
>>I think reserving a DNS-like namespace anchor of ALT is unnecessary; as
>>I mentioned in my comments about the ONION draft, you have a choice of
>>anywhere in the namespace to place that anchor, and there are an
>>enormous number existing pl
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 20 May 2015, at 22:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>> From the discussion on the mailing list, this draft appears to have
>> support in the working group. The authors have requested a Call for
>> Adoption. The chairs want to move forwar
On 3July2015Friday, at 9:26, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> It does seem to me that an important feature here is that "TLD" as we're
> using it is "name in the root zone (or root zone space), to be managed within
> a context that assumes DNS protocol and semantics as well as DNS-compatible
> name
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On Thu 2015-07-02 16:20:30 -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
As an idea: some months ago dkg looked at hooking up unbound to an
upstream resolver over TCP/TLS. It works, but it isn't ideal right
now. Our findings:
Yes. That support to allow only tcp fo
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 : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
Authors : Warren Kumari
Hi,
On Jul 3, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Unfortunately I think we all in this discussion [again] mix up discussion
> about DNS with the discussion about the name space that is in use for example
> by what we know as "the domain name system rooted at the root zone managed by
On 7/3/15 7:01 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:43 AM, manning wrote:
>> Actually, there IS an escape method already defined. We just don’t use it
>> much these days.
>> It’s called “class”
>>
>> There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class.
>> t
Perhaps. The Domain Name System is just that. A naming system for domains,
one of which is the Internet. Being lazy, and in the absence of significant
development in other
domains (save the CHAOS domain), our community conflates the DNS(IN) as the
entire DNS. Which is false. The DNS, class
Hi,
I can't comment on whether this suggestion makes sense for these
overlay networks, but it may be one way of handling these non-DNS
resolving but still use HTTPS/TCP "IN" type things.
I expect that Hellekin, C Grothoff, and others (TOR, namecoin, ...)
would be best placed to comment.
There is
Unfortunately I think we all in this discussion [again] mix up discussion about
DNS with the discussion about the name space that is in use for example by what
we know as "the domain name system rooted at the root zone managed by IANA".
I think we just must force ourselves to stay focused on nam
On 03/07/2015 15:06, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> 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 : The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0
Thanks for that. The original claim was that these name spaces were global in
scope, but not part of the Internet.
So I took that as face value. Your example, while perhaps a valid
interpretation, is not what was asked for.
If it is, then namespace/class specific applications/extentions need to
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 : The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option
Authors : Paul Wouters
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:43 AM, manning wrote:
> Actually, there IS an escape method already defined. We just don’t use it
> much these days.
> It’s called “class”
>
> There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class.
> they could/should be in their
> own class, like t
Linda,
I think this idea has merit and is worth exploring (I had something
like this in mind while brainstorming at the microphone at the recent
DNS-OARC workshop).
I would suggest that it is not necessary to add a special message from
the resolver to the authoritative server to indicate that it
Actually, there IS an escape method already defined. We just don’t use it much
these days.
It’s called “class”
There is no reason these alternate namespaces should sit in the IN class. they
could/should be in their
own class, like the old CHAOS protocols. So a class “ONION” or “P2P” would
Patches to unbound by Sara Dickinson (Sinodun) that are part of the
DNS-over-TLS aka T-DNS project:
Patches:
https://portal.sinodun.com/stash/projects/TDNS/repos/dns-over-tls_patches/browse
On Jul 2, 2015 6:09 PM, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" wrote:
> On Thu 2015-07-02 16:20:30 -0400, Tom Ritter wrot
Dear Suzanne & Tim,
I have just submitted a new draft which tries to work out how to
synchronize the RRs information between resolvers and DNS servers.
The link is as follow and I would like to request a 5-min slot in
the upcoming f2f meeting. Would you please keep it in mind and try to
give m
Excellent idea! Looking forward to help out with this!
I will discuss with Wouter (what he thinks about this and how he would
take it on), but also Sara is deep into Unbound code, especially with
respect to transports!
-- Willem
Op 02-07-15 om 22:36 schreef Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
> On Thu 2015-07-
26 matches
Mail list logo
