-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/20/2016 08:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> In a real sense the question at hand is a very practical one:
> “Which of these documents do you think needs less work?"
>
Having read both drafts, and from the perspective of "Names resolved *
with
I have a lot of sympathy for the worry about boiling the ocean, but
actually my fear is that if we do not enumerate all the problems and talk
about what we have to give up to solve this one or that one, we will never
reach consensus regardless of how small a teakettle we put on to boil,
because we
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> The “toxic waste” names are a “use case” in the sense that people keep asking
> about. The identified need for a default namespace in the homenet protocols
> represents another use case.
There are many use cases for reserving names unde
Indeed….Please keep in mind we’re not talking about a final document here.
While it would be nice to have a document that was almost ready for WG
consensus, there’s room to discuss the final scope in the WG.
The “toxic waste” names are a “use case” in the sense that people keep asking
about. Th
What is out of scope of the problem statement is saying what to do about
them. :)
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:32 AM, David Cake wrote:
> I tend to think that they may be within scope for the problem statement,
> but it is likely that existing solutions (e.g. ICANN refusing to delegate
> them while
I tend to think that they may be within scope for the problem statement, but it
is likely that existing solutions (e.g. ICANN refusing to delegate them while
they remain toxic) are adequate to deal with the problem.
David
> On 19 Sep 2016, at 8:47 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>
>> Dealing with t
Avri,
Thanks for your efforts on this; I see authors have replied to specific
comments.
I just want to clarify what amounts to a process point:
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 4:21 PM, avri doria wrote:
>
> On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we s
So as not to incur the wrath of Tim (again),
(He knows what I mean.)
On 9/12/16, 16:19, "DNSOP on behalf of Suzanne Woolf" wrote:
>As we discussed in Berlin, we need to move forward with adopting a problem
>statement draft for further work on special use domain names.
>The drafts are:
>https
This is an instance of embedding. {th...@example.com}.{non-DNS-part}
is not subject to special delegation rules in some sense, because the
test of {non-DNS-part} requires no DNS action. If its synonymous with
_special_label_.{non-DNS-part}.{example.com} then its about a
conversation with upper syst
Okay, this is an interesting application that would certainly require some
sort of 6761-style action. Do you believe that it is not covered by the
current problem statement?
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Phill wrote:
> There is actually a fifth type of name, escaped names. Right now, the on
There is actually a fifth type of name, escaped names. Right now, the only
names we have of this type are SRV protocol tags, (_http._tcp.example.com)
and internationalized names (xn—wev.com)
I want to add a third set of escaped names, one that has similar
functionality to .onion but does not leak
There is actually a fifth type of name, escaped names. Right now, the only
names we have of this type are SRV protocol tags, (_http._tcp.example.com) and
internationalized names (xn—wev.com)
I want to add a third set of escaped names, one that has similar functionality
to .onion but does not le
Dealing with toxic waste names is out of scope for the problem statement.
Well, that's one theory. Let's see of other people agree.
R's,
John
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Dealing with toxic waste names is out of scope for the problem statement.
The problem of toxic waste names is mentioned in the tldr problem statement
as a problem, which could potentially be dealt with if the working group
decides it's in scope. That's why the document is written the way it is.
>To John's point, short isn't actually good, because it's important to
>document the context--
No, really, short is essential. I'm happy to add the context once we
have a concise statement of what the problem is.
> But we tried to keep the actual
>problem statement short and pithy; if you really
Avri, thanks for the markups--I will take care of the ones that are
actionable, and respond in a separate message, because I want to address
the question of merging explicitly, along with John's comment about brevity.
Why not merge the two documents? This sounds reasonable on the surface,
but ple
>On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
>> the WG to choose.
The more I think about it, the more I think that they're both too
long, and we'd be better off with a one or two sentence description of
what we're trying to do,
On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
> the WG to choose.
I do not understand this point. Having now read both IDs, I see
relevant points for the ongoing discussion in both of them. I see them
as complementary where bo
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Alain Durand
wrote:
>
> The working group now need to decide if they’d rather like a limited and
> concise description of issues surrounding 6761 or if they rather like a
> discussion of the larger issues surrounding special names in general.
>
Exactly right.
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Alain, here's an example, from the abstract:
>
>When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that
>supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it
>is desirable that the protocol used is unambiguou
Alain, here's an example, from the abstract:
When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that
supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it
is desirable that the protocol used is unambiguous, and that requests
intended for one protocol are not inadv
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is
> documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the
> reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the
> original effor
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> One of the reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed
> that the original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions,
> without there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what
> problems
I would just like to point out ...
I would like to wait and see what other people think about it.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
__
I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is
documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the
reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the
original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions,
without the
What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. We
could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then define a
threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular string.
I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this
>Speaking of history, DNSOP spent a huge amount of time talking about those
>specific strings a year or two ago (and decided to not adopt Lyman's doc).
>We can mention the issue in more depth (John, do you have any suggested
>text (especially if we can avoid mentioning the specific strings again)?)
On Friday, September 16, 2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Hm, possibly what you mean is that it's not mentioned explicitly enough.
> I think the document covers the problem in quite a bit of detail, but the
> private domains stuff is mostly in the history section; I could understand
> if you felt that th
Perhaps this would be a good time to stop and see if anyone else is paying
attention.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
___
DNSOP maili
Hm, possibly what you mean is that it's not mentioned explicitly enough.
I think the document covers the problem in quite a bit of detail, but the
private domains stuff is mostly in the history section; I could understand
if you felt that this provided insufficient clarity.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at
o When a top-level name is used as a means either of marking the
rest of a Domain Name for resolution using a protocol other than
DNS, or is used for resolution of names with no global meaning,
not all software that processes such names will understand the
names' special
Section 4.1.2 of the tldr document actually says almost exactly what you
said in your four-pronged strategy, but without the pejorative bit.
I just looked at it again, and don't see anything about the toxic waste
names. Since they're the ones that are hard, I really think we need to
call them
Section 4.1.2 of the tldr document actually says almost exactly what you
said in your four-pronged strategy, but without the pejorative bit.
However, it only talks about this in the case of special-use names, not in
the case of names generally. I certainly generally agree with the
taxonomy you're
... and I have just posted a new version with the term Domain Names -
I (and I think Ted) prefer Internet Names, but our preferences are not
important, we want to do whatever the WG wants.
Personally, I'm more concerned with getting the issues identified, and
then we can decide what to call the
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>
>>> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
>>> adpkja. The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a b
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
>> adpkja. The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since
>> there are a lot of other names on the Inter
Split horizon is another thing. I'm talking about locally resolved zones
(RFC 6303).
I see that as a kind of split horizon. One of the problems with the toxic
waste is that we don't know how much of it is from names that are supposed
to be resolved locally but escaped (much of .corp I would
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
> adpkja. The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, since
> there are a lot of other names on the Internet such as URIs and handle
> system names, and this is ab
Split horizon is another thing. I'm talking about locally resolved zones
(RFC 6303).
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article gmail.com> you write:
> >Don't forget names resolved locally with the DNS Protocol, like
> >1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa. A lot of the names you
In article
you write:
>Don't forget names resolved locally with the DNS Protocol, like
>1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa. A lot of the names you describe as "toxic
>waste" are likely resolved this way.
I suppose split horizon fits in there somewhere, but the toxic waste I was
thinking about is stuff l
Don't forget names resolved locally with the DNS Protocol, like
1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa. A lot of the names you describe as "toxic
waste" are likely resolved this way.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >The drafts are:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-
>The drafts are:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/
Having read them both, neither one thrills me but I'd give the nod to
adpkja. The "Internet Names" in tldr seems to me a bad idea, s
> On Sep 12, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Please, I know many are tired of this topic, but it really is important, so
> please participate and send in your views.
+1
I also would like to strongly recommend people read the latest version of each
documents. They both have evolved
On Monday, September 12, 2016, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> As we discussed in Berlin, we need to move forward with adopting a problem
> statement draft for further work on special use domain names.
>
> Issues of usage around the domain name space are part of our charter, and
> t
Dear Colleagues,
As we discussed in Berlin, we need to move forward with adopting a problem
statement draft for further work on special use domain names.
Issues of usage around the domain name space are part of our charter, and the
IESG has expressed interest more than once in having a clear
45 matches
Mail list logo
