Hi, Paul,
Thanks for the followup! That works ...
Spencer
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
> Hi, Paul,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Hoffman
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins
On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:14, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 18/09/15 19:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Is a domain a sub-domain of itself?
No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a
subdomain of another domain..." There is no la
On 18 Sep 2015, at 13:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
Hi, Paul,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If this
For example, at the time this document is published, the "au" TLD
is not considered a public suffix, but the
On 18September2015Friday, at 11:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> Is a domain a sub-domain of itself?
>
> No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a subdomain
> of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or 103
Hiya,
On 18/09/15 19:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> Is a domain a sub-domain of itself?
>
> No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a
> subdomain of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or
> 1035 that indica
On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:40, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 16 Sep 2015, at 13:31, Ben Campbell wrote:
I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should
exist.
But I share the question others have raised about why publish this
version if a newer version is coming soon.
Just to emphasize
On 16 Sep 2015, at 13:31, Ben Campbell wrote:
I'm balloting "yes" because I think a document like this should exist.
But I share the question others have raised about why publish this
version if a newer version is coming soon.
Just to emphasize what I have said in earlier responses: please don
On 16 Sep 2015, at 20:22, Terry Manderson wrote:
No-objection from me regarding the existence of this document, I do
think
it's helpful, however along with others (Ben, Benoit, Alvaro) I feel
the
work is incomplete if a revision is required so soon.
We hope our wording explains this, without
On 16 Sep 2015, at 11:21, Alvaro Retana wrote:
This is a very nice, and needed reference.
However, I don’t understand why it is being published.
Because it is very nice and needed. :-)
As others have
pointed out, the Introduction reads:
Therefore, the authors intend to follow this documen
On 16 Sep 2015, at 9:52, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If this
For example, at the time this document is published, the "au" TLD
is not considered a public suffix, but the "com.au" domain is.
(Note that this example might change in the future.)
is intended to say that a subdomain may be a
On 16 Sep 2015, at 1:55, Benoit Claise wrote:
- From the shepherd writeup:
"One issue raised by the Working Group was that such a list of
definitions would be best served with some sort of Index.
The authors and the Document Shepherd agree, but feel it would be
better
served being handled duri
On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:46, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Is a domain a sub-domain of itself?
No. The quoted definition from RFC 1034 starts off "A domain is a
subdomain of another domain..." There is no language in RFCs 1034 or
1035 that indicate that a domain can be a subdomain of itself.
Do we c
Hi George!
On 18 Sep 2015, at 12:58, George Michaelson wrote:
> Ed wrote a draft whose purpose claimed to be definitional around what
> domain names are. In that context I replied. If you don't really care how
> we use words, thats fine too.
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of what I ca
Ed wrote a draft whose purpose claimed to be definitional around what
domain names are. In that context I replied. If you don't really care how
we use words, thats fine too.
I agree it won't alter anything and I want to stop here, since I suspect
I'm already well on the way to hitting peoples kill
On 18 Sep 2015, at 17:19, Joe Abley wrote:
> Whether or not we should call an onion or mdns name a "domain name" or
> something else is just a detail. I don't think agreeing on the answer is
> going to solve any of the problems that we actually have
+1
___
On 18 Sep 2015, at 9:54, Alec Muffett wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 14:16, George Michaelson wrote:
>>
>> My private comment bears repeating in public.
>>
>> DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing,
>> set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are ana
If they nest, then yes. if the x. under onion is hash denoted only for
other reasons, but otherwise is a truly encompassing domain, then yes. If
it has a SOA. and NS, and there is a clear zonecut, its not just a domain,
its a DNS domain. But we know that isn't how its going to work: this is a
d
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 14:16, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> .onion is *not* a domain name inside the .onion part: as I
> understand it, the value is a hash, or other function which has no nesting
> properties expressed syntacti
>> So it's IMO fine to say ".onion addresses are case-insensitive and
>> will comply with existing DNS limitations for label lengths (63) and
>> maximum fqdn lengths (253ish)".
>> Which contradicts draft-lewis-domain-names-00
>
>
> So - and not to be pointed - but in your email I reference, shoul
I think its possible I'm arguing off to the side Ed. But, there was a
scoping quality in domain, as applied to domain names, which is pretty
"big" in my opinion. Its analogous to the ordering issues in fully
qualified (relative) distinguished names in X.500. The order of elements of
Surname= Given=
On 9/18/15, 9:54, "Alec Muffett" wrote:
>
> I feel this may need clarification in your section on Tor addressing. Perhaps
> it's not **really** domain-naming, but it **looks** much more like it.
The first point of the document is to allow us to answer that "perhaps" -
without a definition of Do
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 14:16, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> My private comment bears repeating in public.
>
> DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing,
> set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are analogous concepts.
> One is expressed syntactically
On 9/17/15, 17:03, "DNSOP on behalf of Darcy Kevin (FCA)"
wrote:
>Ed,
> I find the document useful, and illuminating, but that it suffers from
>one glaring omission -- no substantive discussion of the relationship
>between domain names and URIs (the related term "URN"[1] is mentioned in
>Se
On 9/18/15, 9:16, "George Michaelson" wrote:
>My private comment bears repeating in public.
That's good...
>DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing,
>set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are analogous
>concepts. One is expressed syntactically some
My private comment bears repeating in public.
DOMAIN names is about the property of domains. Domains are encompassing,
set-theory/venn-diagram style. A domain and a prefix are analogous
concepts. One is expressed syntactically somehow, the other is a
mathematical property of bounding in a number f
25 matches
Mail list logo
