Mark,
On Jul 11, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> This is why you have working groups not check lists for evaluating.
>>
>> RFC 6761 specifies an IETF "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval", not a
>> working group decision.
>
> That why we have groups of people look at the request. Not
In message , David Conrad
writes:
>
> Mark,
>
> > It's like the judge said "I know porn when I see it."
>
> Potter Stewart's 1964 expression was thrown out in 1973 in favor of a
> more objective standard (see the "Miller Test").
>
> > Something are just subjective.
>
> Extreme corner cases may re
Mark,
> It's like the judge said "I know porn when I see it."
Potter Stewart's 1964 expression was thrown out in 1973 in favor of a more
objective standard (see the "Miller Test").
> Something are just subjective.
Extreme corner cases may require subjective analysis. I believe the vast
majori
In message , David Conrad
writes:
> Andrew,
>
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:22PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
> >>
> >> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and
> ICANN
> >> on this topic.
> >
> > Or with regar
Andrew,
On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:22PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
>>
>> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICANN
>> on this topic.
>
> Or with regard to co-ordination between anyone else and the IETF.
T
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:22PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
>
> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICANN
> on this topic.
Or with regard to co-ordination between anyone else and the IETF.
This is part of why I say the IETF retains the ability to take some
names
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/09/2015 12:53 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>
I don't think I can make it to Prague,
> Here is a short list:
>
> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and I
CANN
> on this topic.
>
How did the RFC6761 reservations happ
On 7/7/15, 8:28 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of hellekin" wrote:
>In my opinion, what we need is already there, and is called RFC6761.
>Now I'm all ears for what needs to be done to enhance RFC6761 process.
Here is a short list:
- RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICA
David Conrad writes:
>
> In the past, ISO-3166/MA maintained a color-coded "decoding table" that
> clearly identified the "user assigned" 2-letter ISO codes. However, for
> reasons that I'm sure made sense to someone, they stopped publishing the
> decoding table (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-
Hum… The then director has no recollection of that and a request to ICANN to
produce such a letter was denied. All we have is an assertion that a request
was made.
Neither Herb, nor Bob have any idea what happened. In the interests of
openness & transparency, one might expect less demure beha
Jaap,
>> Thanks. I didn't check the tables before writing. I was pretty sure
>> xq wasn't already assigned to a specific country or territory, but I
>> didn't think about a '1918' style designation of two letter codes.
>> Perhaps we need another subset to put these into. It would be a
>> 'final'
No.
At the time, the Administrative Contact as listed in the IANA Whois database
was USC-ISI. They (IIRC, the Director of ISI) requested the TLD to be removed
from the root zone.
Regards,
-drc
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 12:57 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Dr Eberhard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
That corresponds to my recollection.
el
On 2015-07-08 08:57, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse
>> wrote: My recollection is somewhat different from the AC
>> "requesting" the revocation.
>
> I meant the Depart
Steve Crocker writes:
> >> xq
> >
> > 'pq' is a better example. 'xq' is classified as User Assigned, which
> > means it has been assigned for use by anyone for their own purposes. 'pq'
> > is (using Wikipedia�s term) unassigned.
>
> Thanks. I didn't check the tables before writing.
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
> My recollection is somewhat different from the AC "requesting" the
> revocation.
I meant the Department of the Interior. If I’m remembering correctly.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed
Steve Crocker writes:
> > For the alpha 3-code the complete user assigned set is:
> >
> >AAA-AAZ, QMA-QZZ, XAA-XZZZ and ZZA to ZZZ
> >
> > so one could argue that the delegations for TLD xyz (and maybe xxx) is
> > a actually against the rules in ICANN�s Application Guide Book.
>
>
On 7/7/15 4:48 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
It seems to me that UM did appear in the root and then was taken out of
service. I doubt we’d want to see it assigned to another country or territory
in the near future. I’d put it in subset 8 unless it were brought back to life
in the service of the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/07/2015 08:00 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>>
>> o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to
>> subset 4?
>
> what is needed is a process that is less ambiguous and simpler to
> evaluate than RFC6761 to reserve strings in sub
Thanks. Minor comments in line below.
Steve
On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts.
>
> Edward Lewis writes:
>
>>
>> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. (ICANN) Two letter
On Jul 6, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
> wrote:
>
>> 3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
>> the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in the future. Names in
>> this subset may move to subs
Putting the focus on this part of Steve¹s original email for now:
On 7/5/15, 7:26 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
wrote:
>
>o ICANN speaks indistinctly about subset 5.
>
>o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to subset
>4?
Ideally, I would argue we may not need s
Sorry for the empty previous post.
My recollection is somewhat different from the AC "requesting" the
revocation. But then the then AC reads this list and can relate
himself if he wishes to do so.
And I was quite upset at the time because I wanted dibs on IMODI.UM
(just for the fun of it, not fo
-07-07 11:27, Bill Woodcock wrote:>
> As I'm sure our resident bad-idea-fairy can relate in greater detail,
.UM was a delegated ccTLD with SLD subdelegations and at least one user,
before the administrative contact requested that the TLD delegation be
rescinded or deactivated or whatever you want t
As I'm sure our resident bad-idea-fairy can relate in greater detail, .UM was a
delegated ccTLD with SLD subdelegations and at least one user, before the
administrative contact requested that the TLD delegation be rescinded or
deactivated or whatever you want to call it.
Just a little more co
Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts.
Edward Lewis writes:
>
> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
> wrote:
>
> >3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
> >the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in th
On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
wrote:
>3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
>the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in the future. Names in
>this subset may move to subset 7 to become active ccTLDs. Examples:
>
> xq
'pq' is
This note is an attempt to describe how things work today and to bring some
precision to the current discussion. Except very mildly under the ISSUES
section at the end, this note does not propose anything new.
This is quick draft. There might be errors, missing pieces, assumptions, etc.
Plea
27 matches
Mail list logo
