On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:16:43AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> Note that if we look at the original discussion, my only point is that we
> should not claim ccTLDs are only allocated according to ISO 3166, but that
> there is freedom to create two letter codes -- and that this has happened
> On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I still think that defining TLD is
> useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the
> sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division
> is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this
"Patrik Fältström" writes:
>
> But instead ICANN have, and still am, referring to EU be on the reserved
> list (and now exceptionally reserved) as a reason to allocate as a ccTLD.
>
If one read the board resolution approving EU as a (cc-)TLD, one will
notice that this is really an exceptio
Andrew Sullivan writes:
> I still think that defining TLD is
> useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the
> sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division
> is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this
> document." Or somethin
On 4 May 2015, at 10:25, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I still think that defining TLD is
>> useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the
>> sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division
>> is a matter of pol
On 5/4/15, 4:22, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
>"TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division
>is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this
>document." Or something like that. Any objection?
My one addition would be to word this such that the division is not jus
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
> ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
> categories;")[0]
I'm not opposed to the "and other categories", but the truth is that
anyone who cares about DNS never hears about those other categories.
Even
On 5/4/15, 7:48, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
>On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
>> categories;")[0]
>
>I'm not opposed to the "and other categories", but the truth is that
>anyone who cares about
I agree with Ed on this one. If you skip everything that everyone can't
completely agree on, you'll wind up with a content-free, and useless, document.
You don't need to go into a -lot- of detail, but enough to acknowledge the
scope of what's being discussed.
-Bill
> O
Hi
I have reviewed this document, and support its publication as is.
Olafur
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for Adoption for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
>
> Current versions of the draft is available he
I am still a bit uncomfortable with the -01 definition of glue,
specifically the reference to RFC 2181. I think the reference to RFC 2181
is useful and necessary, but I hesitate to think that RFC 2181's use of
glue is a redefinition that is intended to apply outside of the RFC
itself. That is, I
Greetings. As I was removing the definition of ccTLDs based on the recent
discussion, I realized that there was no stand-alone definition of IDNs.
Proposal:
IDN --- The common abbreviation for "internationalized domain name". IDNs are
the standard
mechanism for displaying names with non-ASCII c
> Em 04/05/2015, à(s) 11:58:000, Paul Hoffman escreveu:
>
> Greetings. As I was removing the definition of ccTLDs based on the recent
> discussion, I realized that there was no stand-alone definition of IDNs.
> Proposal:
>
> IDN --- The common abbreviation for "internationalized domain name".
I'm going to ask this as a question, not a comment, directed to those who
know something about IDN.
Isn't IDNA2008 a "convention" on top of the representation? And, this
isn't about display, it's about, well, encapsulation, maybe? And isn't
IDN tied to Unicode?
I ask for a few reasons - "non-AS
On May 4, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> I prefer changing "standard" to "current standard", since IDNA2008 use can be
> deprecated in favor of IDNA201x, like IDNA2008 replaced IDNA2003.
As one of the primary authors of IDNA2003, and a minor author of IDNA2008, I
agree. :-)
--Paul Hof
On May 4, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I'm going to ask this as a question, not a comment, directed to those who
> know something about IDN.
>
> Isn't IDNA2008 a "convention" on top of the representation?
IDNA2008 is a set of standards-track documents. It is the only standardized wa
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 04:25:57PM -0400,
Marc Blanchet wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
> If we want to be exhaustive in defining all keywords and terms, I
> would suggest then:
I support Andrew Sullivan's version: "TLDs are often divided into
ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division is a matt
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 08:24:10AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> IDNA2008 is a set of standards-track documents.
This is true.
> It is the only standardized way to convert between DNS names and
> representation of non-ASCII characters in the DNS.
>
This is not quite true, and anyway not convinc
Stephane,
On May 4, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> wrote:
I support Andrew Sullivan's version: "TLDs are often divided into
ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division is a matter of policy in the root zone,
and beyond the scope of this document."
Would you support Ed Lewi
>>"TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division
>>is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this
>>document." Or something like that. Any objection?
I think it has to be ccTLDs, gTLDs, and legacy TLDs to include ARPA,
EDU, MIL, GOV and maybe INT. But I entirel
Glue records are necessary to prevent circular references, i.e. to cut the
loop. The most obvious and common situation is where the name server is below
the cut. If the address of the name server were not included, the querying
system would keep being referred to the parent, i.e. stuck in a lo
At Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:58:10 -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for Adoption for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
(I guess this is "for Publication", not "for Adoption").
Also, have we decided to publish it as an Informational document? I'm
not opposed
Steve Crocker wrote:
> Glue records are necessary to prevent circular references, i.e. to cut the
> loop. ...
after kashpureff, circular references are no longer allowed. XYZ.NET
cannot have only nameservers named within within XYZ.ORG, if XYZ.ORG has
only name servers named within XYZ.NET. th
Paul,
Thanks. I agree it’s good to explain this. I’d rather it were explained in a
document that purported to explain how things work instead of slipping it into
a terminology document, but getting it written down somewhere is better than
nowhere.
Steve
On May 4, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Paul Vixi
On May 4, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Thanks. I agree it’s good to explain this. I’d rather it were explained in
> a document that purported to explain how things work instead of slipping it
> into a terminology document, but getting it written down somewhere is better
> than no
Hi Dan, Stephane, Andrew, Ed, folks,
I also prefer Ed Lewis' variant **.
Enumerating all flavours of TLD would be excessive, but mentioning only gTLDs
and ccTLDs -without a hint that there may be other variants- is a false friend,
IMHO.
Hence please can we go for the version with "and other cat
In message <3e811936-349d-49dd-b8c7-4af99739f...@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes
:
> On May 4, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > Thanks. I agree it=92s good to explain this. I=92d rather it were expla=
> ined in a document that purported to explain how things work instead of sli=
> ppi
27 matches
Mail list logo
