>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
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-
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
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
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).
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 2:57 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
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
Hi all,
I know that everyone is sick to death of this whole topic -- we've
been talking about it for *years* with very little progress, and it is
filled with annoying policy and politics discussions
However, if there is not sufficient review and feedback for the chairs
to be able to select be
... 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>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)?)
17 matches
Mail list logo
