On 09/29/2016 05:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> The one option you have is ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy)
> I don't have a better suggestion.
>
.example is for documentation. You can use .invalid for "fake private
TLD", which makes it very clear that it's not a valid TLD. (Sorry
David Conrad writes:
>
> I'd really like to say yes, but ISO-3166/MA appears to have removed
> references
> to "User Assigned" in their official ISO-3166 two letter code w=
> webpage.
Only the the standard is normative.
> I'm trying to understand if they've changed their mind, but no an
"John R Levine" writes:
> They're not assigned, they're not unassigned, they're not reserved,
> they're not formerly assigned, they're not anything.
>
> For about $40 one can buy a copy of ISO 3166-1:2013. It's not clear from
> the TOC if it's any more informative.
The rules are in Sect
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>
> As you can imagine, I disagree.
>
> > Domain names are written left to right.
>
> In english, yes, not in general. They are always written from the
> beginning to the end (obviously) and the final label can be at the
> left in a RTL script.
There is no
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:27:20PM -, John Levine wrote:
> The codes AA, QM-QZ, XA-XZ, and ZZ are "user assigned" and will never
> be used for countries. Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that
> XA-XZ be made private use and the rest future use, but as far as I can
> tell it never wen
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:26:38PM +, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:33:39PM +0100,
> Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote
> a message of 148 lines which said:
>
> > The RCODE applies to the RRSET pointed to by the last CNAME in answer
> > section (or the missing one).
>
> T
> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:56 AM, hellekin wrote:
>
>> On 09/29/2016 05:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>> The one option you have is ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy)
>> I don't have a better suggestion.
>>
>
> .example is for documentation. You can use .invalid for "fake private
> TL
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
> > Matt Larson wrote
> > a message of 41 lines which said:
> >
> > > I'd venture that more people familiar with the subject matter would
> > > define QNAME as the
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:31:32AM +0100,
Ray Bellis wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> Roy Arend's response was that the intent was that an ENT response
> requires the same NSEC records as an NXDOMAIN response, but not the same
> RCODE.
Sure, but the title of the section is very misle
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Matthew Pounsett
wrote:
>
>
> On 28 September 2016 at 10:29, Shumon Huque wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward Lewis
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounset
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:50:05AM -0400,
Robert Edmonds wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> The QNAME is a domain name, but is it an owner name? There is no owned
> record data in the question section (and the entries in the question
> section are not RRs).
You're rigt, of course. Here
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:42:31PM +,
Edward Lewis wrote
a message of 92 lines which said:
> For consistency, the SHOULD's in the first paragraph ought to be
> MAY's.
Process-wise, I don't think it is reasonable to ask for a change in
RFC2119 terms after the Working Group Last Call *and*
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:42:19PM +,
Edward Lewis wrote
a message of 84 lines which said:
> As far as DNSSEC, this only works with DNSSEC in place, right? You
> need the missing span proofs or you are NXDOMAIN'ing entire zones,
> not just entire domains (within a zone).
This is covered
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:46:16PM -0700,
Matthew Pounsett wrote
a message of 137 lines which said:
> My rationale is that if foo.bar.example.org were still a valid name
By "valid name", do you mean "something which existed less than $TTL
seconds ago"?
> at the time that the bar.example.org
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:28:57PM +,
White, Andrew wrote
a message of 284 lines which said:
> True. When a resolver gets an NXDOMAIN for, say x.example.com, would
> it better to say the resolver SHOULD drop from cache all descendents
> of x.example.com, or MAY?
The current state of the d
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:44:27PM +0200,
Ralf Weber wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
> I consider anything in the cache where the TTL is still valid to be
> valid data that can be send to clients even if below the nxdomain
> cut. My understanding is that this is how the current draft i
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:38:52PM +0100,
Jim Reid wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
> Where’s the demand from experimenters
The demand? You see it in the use of non-ICANN TLDs like .onion or
.bit.
> and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their alterate resolution
> systems?
You may
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:17:28AM +,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote
a message of 57 lines which said:
> By the way, is it the case that CNAMEs in the answer section MUST
> appear in their natural chaining order:
Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread-stealing (hence changing
the subject, and
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:50:13AM +0200,
Jaap Akkerhuis wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> There is no such thing as a language attribute to doamain names.
Tell that to ICANN, which continues to use "languages" when they mean
"scripts" :-(
But if you want precision, let's go:
A doma
> On 29 Sep 2016, at 13:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>
>> Where’s the demand from experimenters
>
> The demand? You see it in the use of non-ICANN TLDs like .onion or
> .bit.
>
>> and why do they need a dedicated TLD for their alterate resolution
>> systems?
>
> You may think they don't
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:17:28AM +,
> Viktor Dukhovni wrote
> a message of 57 lines which said:
>
> > By the way, is it the case that CNAMEs in the answer section MUST
> > appear in their natural chaining order:
>
> Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread
On 29 Sep 2016, at 14:29, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Tell that to ICANN, which continues to use "languages" when they mean
> "scripts" :-(
If it was that easy... :-P
paf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
It wasn't particularly clear which later message in this thread to respond
to so I'm replying to the first. If anyone is interested, I happen to know
John Postel's opinion on this matter. If you look at early drafts of RFC
2606, such as
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-06
> On Sep 28, 2016, at 17:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:35:00PM -0400,
> Paul Wouters wrote
> a message of 16 lines which said:
>
>>> it works (two TLD were registered through it).
>>
>> Are you referring to the two registrations as successes or failures,
>
>
To be clear, while the IESG may have said something about their
willingness to entertain further uses of the 6761 process, the 6761
process represents current IETF consensus. If we don't update it, it
stands. The IESG does not have the authority to overrule IETF
consensus. There's some sense th
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:21, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> To be clear, while the IESG may have said something about their
> willingness to entertain further uses of the 6761 process, the 6761
> process represents current IETF consensus. If we don't update it, it
> stands.
That does contract earlier st
On 28 Sep 2016, at 22:50, Robert Edmonds wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
Matt Larson wrote
a message of 41 lines which said:
I'd venture that more people familiar with the subject matter would
define QNAME as the name in the question section of a
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 22:50, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
>>> Matt Larson wrote
>>> a message of 41 lines which said:
>>>
>>> I'd venture that more people familiar with
Carrot and stick. The current IESG can certainly abstain new proposals to
death, and individual ADs can refuse to publish. But in doing so they are
trying to lead the consensus on a new direction. They cannot unilaterally
change it.
On Sep 29, 2016 10:27, "Paul Wouters" wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2016,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which
> describes the format of resource records:
Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this
sentence:
All RRs have the same top level format shown below:
with:
The answ
On 29 Sep 2016, at 8:01, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which
>> describes the format of resource records:
>
> Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this
> sentence:
>
> All RRs have
Mark,
On September 28, 2016 at 5:08:05 PM, Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org) wrote:
> I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local
> network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely
> ever to collide with a real DNS name. Am I right?
No. Just be
>> prompts another question: if a name enters the Special-Use Name
>> Registry, is it parked (for an indefinite amount of time), or is it
>> engraved in stone (and won't move from that registry again)? And can
>> the SUNR hold both types of names (parked and final)?
>
>Good question, not (as far a
Mark,
On September 28, 2016 at 10:35:40 PM, Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org) wrote:
Things can change. It is ALWAYS a bad idea to use namespace not
delegated to you.
Unless, of course, Ed's draft progresses and the user assigned ISO codes are
turned into private use TLDs (similar to RFC 1918 turni
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 9/29/16, 03:27, "DNSOP on behalf of John Levine" on behalf of jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that XA-XZ be made private use and
>> the rest future use, but as far as I can tell it never went anywher
Hi -
A couple of items of history. Back about 1987, Jon Postel and I talked
about the original registration of .INT - he was the IANA, I was
managing the NIC contract which would be responsible for dealing with
registrations under .INT. ( .INT ended up being managed by ISI under an
DARPA co
If the process was a success, we would have had the other candidates go
through as well. The process was a failure because it has been rather
arbitrary - which is why it needed to close down as it did.
Some of us think that the process worked OK, and the other candidates
don't meet the requirem
At Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:19:17 -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This draft has been worked on and it seems that the Working Group is
> happy with the updates that have been made and I feel it's ready for the
> next step.
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
> "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3
I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local
network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely ever to
collide with a real DNS name. Am I right?
C: why not just use .alt for this? It is clear that these should not
hit the global DNS, and s
On Thursday, 29 September 2016, John R Levine wrote:
> I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their
local network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely
ever to collide with a real DNS name. Am I right?
>>>
> C: why not just use .a
I suppose I could use jrl.alt, but I wouldn't want to use plain .alt for
fear of, if you'll pardon the phrase, name collisions.
Name collisions may occur at any delegation point - why do you think the
root zone is special in this regard?
The point of .alt as I understand it is to provide a ho
The initiation problem is the belief IETF needs a mechanism to
identify non-use of the DNS or special use of the DNS demanding a
break-out from normal gethostbyname() and related processing.
The second order problem is that people come to the table with
proscriptive ideas about the specific label:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:28 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> I suppose I could use jrl.alt, but I wouldn't want to use plain .alt for
>>> fear of, if you'll pardon the phrase, name collisions.
>>>
>>
> Name collisions may occur at any delegation point - why do you think the
>> root zone is special in
The latter, is the decision-role of ICANN. Under advisement, yes.
respecting IETF process yes. But the mechanism as written in 6761
vests IETF with a process outcome which specifies where the label is,
and what value. Thats just wrong.
For some version of wrong, I suppose, but it seems a false a
Thats precisely why its NOT a false analogy: the design model in the
IETF is that the value doesn't matter, but in the DNS, the design
model is "follow the money" and 6761 crosses the bars: it enables
people in tech-space, to reserve labels in meat-space.
We got it wrong. We should have encouraged
So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other because you
are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.
On Sep 29, 2016 6:03 PM, "George Michaelson" wrote:
Thats precisely why its NOT a false a
On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
> So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
> this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other because you
> are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.
>
... and why we need a Special
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
this discussion is why. You are
both taking past reach other because you are looking at only the part of
the probl
So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement,
this discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other because you
are looking at only the part of the problem you care about.
Agreed. It's also why the problem statement has to be as short as
possible, like one se
Okay, John, if you can state the problem in one sentence and not have
it just be your particular view of the problem, let's hear that
sentence. Otherwise, can you stop with the hyperbole?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:10 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /g
Okay, John, if you can state the problem in one sentence and not have
it just be your particular view of the problem, let's hear that
sentence. Otherwise, can you stop with the hyperbole?
I did, back on Sept 18th. Here it is again, slightly tweaked. I realize
that you don't like either of t
On Sep 29, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Warren Kumari
mailto:war...@kumari.net>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Ted Lemon
mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote:
So, if anyone is still wondering why we need a /good/ problem statement, this
discussion is why. You are both taking past reach other becaus
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:03:33AM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > Very good question but, IMHO, it is thread-stealing (hence changing
> > the subject, and removing thread headers).
>
> I think there was already a thread on this topic recently on this list
> ("Order of CNAME and A in Authoritati
53 matches
Mail list logo
