On 23 May 2015 at 09:35, Richard Barnes wrote:
> tl;dr: Ship it.
++
Nits:
- Noted for the first time that the IETF boilerplate uses the oxford
comma. (I like the Oxford comma, but it seems most don't.)
- "visually or apparently semantically similar to the desired
service" - not sure what "or a
On 6/5/15, 21:16, "Warren Kumari" wrote:
>I think that such a list / resource would be a fine idea, but I think
>that:
>A: it would be good to avoid calling it a "registry" (that term has
>specific meaning within the DNS world), and
Not just in the DNS world.
To research this response, I looked
As I mentioned before, given that the whole point of .alt is that
people are implementing things that look like DNS names but are
resolved in some other way, the winner of any such conflict is the one
with widely used running code.
Yah. If I'm launching a new namespace that resolves based upon
,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT
>>> registry in order for .ALT to be able to
>>address anything other than experimental uses.
>>And I think this would actually be a good thing.
>>
>>If we created a registry
>I agree that if you had a registry that had no unique entry, there'd
>be no problem. But if you have to be prepared for identifier
>collisions anyway, what use is the registry?
It tells you where to find out about foo.alt if you want to use that
particular un-DNS hack. Other than that, not much
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:16:05PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> I think the difference is that ".alt" names should not be leaked into DNS,
> but should be kept private.
But there will be such leaks, so that's no defence. And for local
use, a DNS leak wouldn't be an issue either, some would argue
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:53:02PM -, John Levine wrote:
> I think the key difference would be that it would accept any number of
> entries for the same string
I thought that Ted's idea was uniqueness. (Otherwise there wouldn't
be a landrush.)
I agree that if you had a registry that had no u
>> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT registry
>> in order for .ALT to be able to
>address anything other than experimental uses.
>And I think this would actually be a good thing.
>
>If we created a registry for alt, how would alt not be just another
>TLD with exac
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >
> > This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT
> registry in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than
> experimental uses.
> And I thin
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT registry
> in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than experimental uses.
And I think this would actually be a good thing.
If we created a registry f
tl;dr: Ship it.
On adoption: I agree that we should adopt this document.
On WGLC: I have reviewed this document, and I think it's generally in fine
shape to send to the IESG. I have included a few comments below, but
they're mostly editorial. The only issue of any substance is that I would
pref
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:20 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> It would be a shame for them to nitpick the rules because "special purpose
>> namespace" != "TLD"?
>>
>
> Is the CAB really likely to waste its time on that? I don't know them, I
> have no idea. I'd hope they had better things to worry abo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Bob Harold wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley
> wrote:
>
>> ... I would also support (as I have heard others say before, and
>> as I think I have also said) a separate document that provides
>> advice to anybody else planning to de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/21/2015 04:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> It would make sense to call it a reserved special-use top-level domain
name.
> It's not a top-level domain in the DNS, though.
> I think that's the distinction to make.
>
*** A distinction that the P2PN
On May 21, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
> It would be a shame for them to nitpick the rules because "special purpose
> namespace" != "TLD"?
It would make sense to call it a reserved special-use top-level domain name.
It's not a top-level domain in the DNS, though. I think that's th
It would be a shame for them to nitpick the rules because "special purpose namespace" !=
"TLD"?
Is the CAB really likely to waste its time on that? I don't know them, I
have no idea. I'd hope they had better things to worry about if it's
abundantly clear whether we've declared .onion to be
> On May 21, 2015, at 4:41 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> I share the concerns about calling .onion a TLD, but I think that's
> easily fixable by calling it something like a special purpose
> namespace, then going through the document and changing it where
> appropriate.
Not to complicate matters,
>They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be unique and, ideally,
>descriptive.
>
>Is something that in reality won't happen, ...
Sure it will, for the same reason that the alt.* newsgroups worked and
continue to work.
Remember, this isn't the DNS. The way you stake a claim to alt.foo is
On May 21, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Francisco Obispo wrote:
> Is something that in reality won’t happen, and we will be back to square one.
> “foo.ALT” is going to be very popular and without a registry to control the
> namespace you’ll end up in a situation where more than one application will
> atte
On May 21, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> To your point though, I don't think we can ever practically prevent a query
> being sent to the DNS. There are no controls available to us that would allow
> us to do that.
This is unfortunately true. However, there are varying degrees of contro
Hi Warren,
Just finished reading the draft (for ALT), but still think this is not going to
help.
The statement:
They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be unique and, ideally,
descriptive.
Is something that in reality won’t happen, and we will be back to square one.
“foo.ALT” is going
Hi Bob,
On 21 May 2015, at 12:55, Bob Harold wrote:
The "onion.eff.org" idea only solves half of the problems - it would
prevent others from using the domain for something else, but it fails
to
provide the required privacy - part of the requirement is that the
onion
names NOT be sent to DNS
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> ...
> I would also support (as I have heard others say before, and as I think I
> have also said) a separate document that provides advice to anybody else
> planning to deploy code that uses a DNS-like namespace that is not the DNS.
> Such peopl
>Unfortunately, I do not think this is good advice. Domain registrations have
>to
>be renewed, ...
There are domain registrations that don't have to be renewed, but I
still agree with your advice. We don't want to tell people to balance
a long term design on a short term foundation.
R's,
Joh
I've read, I support, I will continue to read and contribute.
-tom
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On May 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Such people should either make their names unambiguously different from
>> those used in the DNS, or should anchor them somewhere else in the namespace
>> where defensive registrations in the DNS are less contentious. For example,
>> if the Tor
In article
you write:
>On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>>> The draft can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>> The draft can be found here:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01
>>
>> Please review the d
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> From the outcome of the Interim meeting, and discussion on the list, this
> draft appears to both have strong support and address the problem space of
> RFC 6761. The authors have requested a Call for Adoption. The chairs wan
On 20 May 2015, at 13:12, Tim Wicinski wrote:
The draft can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01
Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
I have read this document. I suppo
Greetings,
From the outcome of the Interim meeting, and discussion on the list,
this draft appears to both have strong support and address the problem
space of RFC 6761. The authors have requested a Call for Adoption. The
chairs want to move forward with this draft if it has consensus suppor
31 matches
Mail list logo