Mark Andrews wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > Roy Arends wrote:
> >
> > > If that succeeds, only then validation makes sense.
> >
> > Why? Why not validate the chain of referrals as you follow them? The
> > protocol is designed to support that otherwise it would not include the DS
> > in the refer
On 03 Dec 2013, at 10:06, Tony Finch wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Tony Finch wrote:
>>> Roy Arends wrote:
>>>
If that succeeds, only then validation makes sense.
>>>
>>> Why? Why not validate the chain of referrals as you follow them? The
>>> protocol is designed to support that othe
Roy Arends wrote:
>
> i.e. I never said that it doesn’t make sense to reduce validation
> latency. On the contrary.
>
> I also said that it makes sense to complete the delegation chain first,
> then complete the validation chain.
But those two statements are a contradiction. The main opportunity
On 03 Dec 2013, at 11:06, Tony Finch wrote:
> Roy Arends wrote:
>>
>> i.e. I never said that it doesn’t make sense to reduce validation
>> latency. On the contrary.
>>
>> I also said that it makes sense to complete the delegation chain first,
>> then complete the validation chain.
>
> But tho
Hi Stephane,
At 09:53 01-12-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
RFC 6761 does not say anything about that. Do note a TLD has already
been registered under RFC 6761, .local. Some people may say that, when
you are a big US company, just hijack the TLD, deploy the software,
and the IETF will ruberstamp
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:00:30AM -0500,
Joe Abley wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> Saying that using a non-IN class is a non-starter seems about as
> silly
There have been an ITU project to use classes (UN instead of IN?) to
have different namespaces, probably to have the new spac
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 06:53:57PM +0200,
Andreas Gustafsson wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> if they want .exit really badly, they can pay ICANN the same
> application fee any other gTLD applicant would.
Did Apple pay ICANN for .local? No. Why would Tor people have to do
it?
___
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:32:34PM -0500,
Andrew Sullivan wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> Also, partly echoing what Joe argued, the .local case is special
> because (1) Apple implemented and released it first and then
> documented;
Exactly the same situation with .onion. The Tor peo
On 12/3/13, 9:08 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:00:30AM -0500,
> Joe Abley wrote
> a message of 20 lines which said:
>
>> Saying that using a non-IN class is a non-starter seems about as
>> silly
>
> There have been an ITU project to use classes (UN instead of IN
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:56:14AM +0100,
Marco Davids (SIDN) wrote
a message of 122 lines which said:
> Would it be worthwhile to add .bit to the list (Namecoin)?
The way I understand RFC 6761, it does not say we must register
proactively every TLD which is floating around. It just provides
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:50:35AM -0500,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 88 lines which said:
> And I would like .pony as well please.
>
> The concern that we run into is deciding where to draw the line --
> can I just start using .wkumari in some random namespace and ask for
> it to be res
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> If we want actual testing of the ability to run non-IN classes, I
> accept donations in bitcoins to do so in my lab :-) But, anyway, you
> have very little chance of convincing any developer to spend time in
> this direction, which is clear
On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> If we want actual testing of the ability to run non-IN classes, I
>> accept donations in bitcoins to do so in my lab :-) But, anyway, you
>> have very little chance of convincing any develope
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:10:31PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Indeed, .onion, .zkey and .gnu do not use the DNS at all. They need
> domain names but not the DNS.
Nonsense. The very abstract says, "[C]ompatibility with applications
using DNS names is desired…." The hard lesson of mDNS
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:10:39AM -0500,
Paul Wouters wrote
a message of 58 lines which said:
> Additionally, encrypting to authoritative servers seems to not make
> _that_ much sense to me. Remember, when I need to know
> www.nohats.ca, I already tell the .ca nameserver the entire QNAME
> be
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:05:43PM -0500,
Andrew Sullivan wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> Nonsense.
I disagree.
> The very abstract says, "[C]ompatibility with applications using DNS
> names is desired…."
Bad wording in the draft, indeed, it should have been "domain names".
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:00:04AM -0800,
David Conrad wrote
a message of 79 lines which said:
> If it isn't a DNS thing, then why is there a discussion of the
> allocation of top-level _domains_?
Because domain names and DNS are two different things. Domain names is
a syntax and rules for
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:13:26PM -0500,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
> > OK. And do note "chaff" may be a by-product of
> > draft-wkumari-dnsop-hammer.
>
> Um, please explain.
>
> Hammer (and the various similar, actually implemented things) simply
> trigger lookup
Hi Jacob,
At 08:52 03-12-2013, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
In terms of informational RFCs, I think it is clearly a good idea to
document what is realistically in use.
Yes.
I assume that .local did not always have history? However, I think that
there are clearly many p2p systems with a history as w
Stephane,
On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> The issue here is that they are, in fact, using the DNS in the sense
>> that they are using applications that expect to query a local DNS
>> stub resolver
>
> No, no, no. Few applications query " a local DNS stub resolver" (dig
On Dec 3, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:13:26PM -0500,
> Warren Kumari wrote
> a message of 35 lines which said:
>
>>> OK. And do note "chaff" may be a by-product of
>>> draft-wkumari-dnsop-hammer.
>>
>> Um, please explain.
>>
>> Hammer (and the v
On 4 dec 2013, at 01:50, David Conrad wrote:
> Ignoring that, other than aesthetics, what is the downside of .alt or
> .not-dns or .arpa again?
Not much but it is hard to exclude the aesthetics and issues for deployed
software. Same question as for .local, part from of course that .arpa
would
Btw, I did ask a person working with these things how this is implemented in
reality, out in the world, and the following is the response:
> *** At this point I don't think there's a global plugin for all of
> them. The Tails distribution has a nice page explaining how to enforce
> Tor (and I2P)
23 matches
Mail list logo
