On 29 Sep 2016, at 14:29, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Tell that to ICANN, which continues to use "languages" when they mean
> "scripts" :-(
If it was that easy... :-P
paf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
> On 29 Sep 2016, at 13:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>
>> Where’s the demand from experimenters
>
> The demand? You see it in the use of non-ICANN TLDs like .onion or
> .bit.
>
>> and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their alterate resolution
>> systems?
>
> You may think they don't
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:50:13AM +0200,
Jaap Akkerhuis wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> There is no such thing as a language attribute to doamain names.
Tell that to ICANN, which continues to use "languages" when they mean
"scripts" :-(
But if you want precision, let's go:
A doma
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:38:52PM +0100,
Jim Reid wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
> Where’s the demand from experimenters
The demand? You see it in the use of non-ICANN TLDs like .onion or
.bit.
> and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their alterate resolution
> systems?
You may
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>
> As you can imagine, I disagree.
>
> > Domain names are written left to right.
>
> In english, yes, not in general. They are always written from the
> beginning to the end (obviously) and the final label can be at the
> left in a RTL script.
There is no
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 05:51:54PM +0100,
Jim Reid wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> > No. It is rightmost only in LTR scripts. "final" is correct,
> > "rightmost" isn't. Please delete it.
>
> The original text is correct and doesn’t need fixing. Well, at least
> the quoted extract do
Jim, I asked you this privately, but your mail server bounced my mail for
no obvious reason with:
550 5.7.1 : Client host rejected:
No thanks.
So, what do you think "the root cause" is?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari wrote:
> >
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> They both come up short as problem statements IMO. I’m struggling to find
> words to succinctly describe what problem the WG is expected to solve - sorry
> about that -- since it appears to be a layer 9+ matter. Both drafts seem to
> be conce
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>
>>> Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless
>>> detail and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
>>
>> we have two of them --
>
>
I think Jim is on to some thing here. I suspect part of the problem is
that there is no crisp understanding of what the DNS actually is. Without
that it is much harder to say what it is not.
/Wm
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless
>> detail and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
>
> we have two of them --
Indeed Warren. That’s one too many.
They both come up sh
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:45, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I like the term.
>
> Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless detail
> and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
we
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:45, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> Personally, I like the term.
Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless detail
and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
___
DNSOP mailing list
On 27/09/2016 09:33, hellekin wrote:
> I remember introducing the term 'pseudo-TLD' in the P2P Names draft and
> doing a similar research as the one I cut from your message for brevity.
> At the time I thought the Canada Dry effect would work: it looks like
> DNS, it tastes like DNS, but it's n
On 09/27/2016 02:37 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> My opinion really doesn't matter, but I happen to think that, at this
> point, we should evaluate the requested P2P names according to RFC
> 6761 -- you followed the process in effect *at the time*, and jumped
> through many hoops. The process is f
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:48 PM, hellekin wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, 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 of the IETF.
>>
>> Title
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:57:05AM -0700,
> internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
> a message of 48 lines which said:
>
>> Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>> Authors : Warren Kumari
>>
On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, 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 of the IETF.
>
> Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>
> On 25 Sep 2016, at 17:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>
>> This label is intended to be used as the final (rightmost) label
>
> No. It is rightmost only in LTR scripts. "final" is correct,
> "rightmost" isn't. Please delete it.
The original text is correct and doesn’t need fixing. Well, a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:57:05AM -0700,
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
> Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
> Authors : Warren Kumari
> Andrew Sullivan
> Filename: draft-ietf-
On 12 Sep 2016, at 18:38, George Michaelson wrote:
If you wish to make it attractive, the meeting point is probably
not-dns
Agree.
because alt is .. too desireable by others with different intent, in
the real world.
It is also too unclear even to people who think it means "alternative":
t
If you wish to make it attractive, the meeting point is probably not-dns
because alt is .. too desireable by others with different intent, in
the real world.
(I didn't mean >not-dns<)
the advantage of the unicode choice, was purely that it avoided
semantic meaning and was unlikely to be chosen.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> Alt being semantically overloaded in times past, contextually even in
> domain names (Usenet, the great renaming) It seems highly unwise to
> ignore that historic understanding that people thought it meant the
> same thing as "burning ma
Alt being semantically overloaded in times past, contextually even in
domain names (Usenet, the great renaming) It seems highly unwise to
ignore that historic understanding that people thought it meant the
same thing as "burning man"
The string >not-dns< has two useful properties: its not current
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 of the IETF.
Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
Authors : Warren Kumari
Andrew Sulli
25 matches
Mail list logo
