--On Friday, July 7, 2017 10:42 +1000 Mark Andrews
wrote:
>> The same subsection of RFC 3986 also uses the term "host
>> subcomponent" for what you are referring to as a name and
>> allows it to be a "registered name" (or ) that
>> might not be a DNS name or reference at all -- whether it is
>>
In message <901C29488D8446E4176CF83E@PSB>, John C Klensin writes:
>
>
> --On Thursday, July 6, 2017 09:11 +1000 Mark Andrews
> wrote:
>
> >...
> > And the actual presentation limit for LDH with DNS is 253
> > (encodes as 255 octets on the wire). Remember URI names do
> > not have a final peri
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Thursday, July 6, 2017 09:11 +1000 Mark Andrews
> wrote:
>
>>...
>> And the actual presentation limit for LDH with DNS is 253
>> (encodes as 255 octets on the wire). Remember URI names do
>> not have a final period and the each label has length octet
>> when encod
--On Thursday, July 6, 2017 09:11 +1000 Mark Andrews
wrote:
>...
> And the actual presentation limit for LDH with DNS is 253
> (encodes as 255 octets on the wire). Remember URI names do
> not have a final period and the each label has length octet
> when encoded as a DNS name and the name is t
In message <765a15bf-8505-4470-9628-70ce9665b...@gbiv.com>, "Roy T. Fielding"
writes:
> > On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin =
> wrote:
> >=20
> > On 5 July 2017 at 13:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>=20
> >> In message =
> , =
> Matthew Kerwin writes:
> >>> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark An
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>
> On 5 July 2017 at 13:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> In message
>> ,
>> Matthew Kerwin writes:
>>> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
tuple and
On Jul 4, 2017, at 10:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> Hi, I'm jumping in at a random time with a possibly dumb question, but
> the talk of and tuples got me wondering
> about representation in general, and URLs in particular.
This is an interesting topic, but out of scope for the document being
Been trying to figure out where to insert this.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless-03
Abstract
Domain Name System Resource Records are identified in part by their
class. The class field is not effective, and it is not used the way
it appears to have been inten
--On Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:01 AM -0400 Suzanne Woolf
wrote:
> (not sure which hat. Probably doc shepherd.)
>...
>> This is a very good question. We weren't asked to answer
>> that question, so we didn't. It is assumed throughout the
>> document that various proponents of special use doma
(not sure which hat. Probably doc shepherd.)
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages? or
>> is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to kill
>> som
On 5 July 2017 at 13:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
> , Matthew
> Kerwin writes:
>> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> >
>> > Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
>> > tuple and how do you reach those machines. There
>> > is absolutely no rea
In message
, Matthew
Kerwin writes:
> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
> > tuple and how do you reach those machines. There
> > is absolutely no reason why the zones and
> > need to be served by the same
Most of the other application (besides dns) presume a single class, IN,
hence the URL presumption of "DNS name" will -always- be in the IN class.
Technically imprecise and sloppy, but pragmatically it works... until some
loons come along and do something creative with classes. Then all bets
are
On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the
> tuple and how do you reach those machines. There
> is absolutely no reason why the zones and
> need to be served by the same machines. There is a argument for
> them both bein
In message <2df1afc7-643b-4610-8eb8-0616d3d0b...@fugue.com>, Ted Lemon writes:
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, william manning
> wrote:
> > I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts.
> > And to answer your question above, technically, the TLD org. is a
> > member of the IN class,
Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, william
manning wrote:
I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts. And to
answer your question above, technically, the TLD org. is a member
of the IN class, so in the OF class, it is credible to posit the
existence of a org. TLD.
On Jul 4, 2017, at 1:32 PM, william manning wrote:
> I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts.
> And to answer your question above, technically, the TLD org. is a member of
> the IN class, so in the OF class, it is credible to posit the existence of a
> org. TLD. TLDs are
I find Randys line of discussion mirroring my own thoughts.
And to answer your question above, technically, the TLD org. is a member
of the IN class, so in the OF class, it is credible to posit the existence
of a org. TLD. TLDs are per class... :)
/Wm
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ted Lemo
On Jul 4, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> maybe it would have helped if i had put UNREASONABLE DESIRE in
> upper case.
My point was just that this wouldn’t be a description of what we might want to
accomplish with special-use names.
___
DNSOP m
>> i would offer to put my keyboard where my mouth is. but i fear that,
>> at the bottom, i would have the unreasonable desire for dns classes
>> to support these kinds of things. i.e. i don't think we have a clean
>> fix. but it would be nice to document the good with the bad.
>
> That sounds
On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i would offer to put my keyboard where my mouth is. but i fear that, at
> the bottom, i would have the unreasonable desire for dns classes to
> support these kinds of things. i.e. i don't think we have a clean fix.
> but it would be nice to documen
>> how depressing. one obvious curiousity is who asked the one-sided
>> question? otoh, maybe i don't want to know. but i wish you had
>> perceived a wider responsibility to the community.
>
> It was discussed at length in the working group, so I would say that
> you could In principle have rai
On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> how depressing. one obvious curiousity is who asked the one-sided
> question? otoh, maybe i don't want to know. but i wish you had
> perceived a wider responsibility to the community.
It was discussed at length in the working group, so I would sa
>> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages?
>> or is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to
>> kill something?
>
> This is a very good question. We weren’t asked to answer that
> question, so we didn’t.
how depressing. one obvious curiousity is w
On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages? or
> is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to kill
> something?
This is a very good question. We weren’t asked to answer that question, so we
didn’t. It is
>>> The Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement document unsurprisingly
>>> contains a list of problems.
>>
>> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages?
>
> It's a list of problems, not solutions, so there aren't benefits
> and/or advantages.
so there are no advntage
> On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> The Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement document unsurprisingly
>> contains a list of problems.
>
> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages?
It's a list of problems, not solutions, so there aren't benefits a
> The Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement document unsurprisingly
> contains a list of problems.
is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages? or
is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to kill
something?
randy, who does not have a dog in this fi
Hi all,
The Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement document unsurprisingly
contains a list of problems.
This was an unordered list of 21 problems, including descriptions and
sub-bullets.
While trying to write another draft referring to specific problems it
became clear that it would be much
29 matches
Mail list logo
