On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:02:18AM -0500,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 69 lines which said:
> If you are going to design something that looks like the DNS, but
> isn't (something that looks like an overlay / uses dot separated
> labels / "can be entered where you normally would enter an DN
On 12/6/13 4:29 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Convincing all existing users (e.g .local) to move under the new
labor (e.g local.alt) is probably a non-starter, but perhaps things
like .bit, and new things may do so…
OK, then someone has to write a RFC6761-style Internet-Draft
describing .alt,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:36:53AM -0800,
David Conrad wrote
a message of 60 lines which said:
> With the proliferation of new TLDs, how is anyone supposed to know
> if a TLD is a real TLD and not some pseudo-domain that looks like a
> TLD but isn't really
I disagree with the use of deprecia
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:48:41PM +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 206 lines which said:
> I think a good idea to have dnsop read and discuss about it.
But I do not think it is a good thing that there are much more
messages about this proposal than about the DNS privacy drafts,
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:29:44AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> There is no such thing as DNS name. We talk about domain names here,
> domain names exist outside of the DNS (LDAP, mDNS and other resolution
> protocols).
MDNS names are _not_ domain names, sorry. They look like domain
names,
Stephane,
On Dec 6, 2013, at 1:41 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> With the proliferation of new TLDs, how is anyone supposed to know
>> if a TLD is a real TLD and not some pseudo-domain that looks like a
>> TLD but isn't really
> I disagree with the use of depreciative words like "pseudo-TLD".
On 12/01/2013 06:45 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> FYI - if you can reply, it would be helpful, I am about to fly to Europe.
I'll try.
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [internet-dra...@ietf.org: I-D Action:
> draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00.txt]
> Date: Sun,
On 12/01/2013 06:53 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Why was .gnu on that list?
>
> The GNUnet top-level was named .gads at a time. I do not know the
> reasons for the change.
The reason was that Jake strongly disliked ".gads" and suggested
".gnu" to Richard at IETF 87 and we all agreed that th
> ... the usenet alt convention ...
is not known to the corporation you may be trying to inform, so some
form of commuication to this effect is likely to be more useful than
its absence, if informing that corporation has some utility value.
-e
___
DNSOP
SM:
> 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 IE
All,
I was reminded from the dnssd minutes that today is the day for the
final submission. I had one change on Evans' comments which I've
adjusted. There was other discussion, not on the content of what was
said, but whether it was correct or not. That is a different discussion.
I've submit
Christian,
On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> Aside from that,
> if there are unrelated systems, they should probably write their own RFC, as
> their requirements may differ.
Personally, I'd prefer each requester of a top-level pseudo-domain (to use the
term from RFC 6761)
Andrew,
On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> The difficulty is in the claim that these names are already "out
> there". If that is in fact true -- that these are names that are
> being handed around and potentially will get into protocol slots --
> then as a matter of prudence we
On 12/06/2013 09:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> And who'll manage ".alt"?
> Why does it matter? Does it even need management? The issue here is that
> without the reservation of the top-level name, there is a chance that it will
> be delegated via ICANN's new gTLD process. Since the names in qu
Christian,
On Dec 6, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> I meant 'management' in the sense of assigning names under .alt to
> groups/organizations/software. We'd effectively need another process to
> decide who gets to implement a mechanism for ".com.alt".
The RFC 6761 registry
(ht
15 matches
Mail list logo
