Seciont 6.1 says:
> The presentation value of "alpn" is a comma-separated list of one or more
> "alpn-id"s. Any commas present in the protocol-id are escaped by a backslash:
>
> escaped-octet = %x00-2b / "\," / %x2d-5b / "\\" / %x5D-FF
> escaped-id = 1*(escaped-octet)
> alpn-value =
I think there's an implementation difficulty. Consider:
1. alpn=h2 ; clear enough
2. alpn="h2" ; should be equivalent
3. alpn=\h\2 ; should also be equivalent
4. alpn=h2,h3 ; ok (two values)
5. alpn="h2","h3" ; should be equivalent
6. alpn="h2,h3
This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but the
venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I
realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to
heresy in today’s IETF, but nevertheless I must record my oppositio
On Jun 13, 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>
> I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of policy
> regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades ago, and
> in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such discussions should
> ta
On 13 Jun 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston wrote:
> This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but
> the venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I
> realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to
> heresy in t
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 21:39:05 UTC Geoff Huston wrote:
> ...
>
> I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of
> policy regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades
> ago, and in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such
> discussion
In article <8bf10121-cf4b-4341-bc40-f427a8f4b...@apnic.net> you write:
>This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but the
>venue where such
>topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I realise that
>explicitly opposing such WG
>calls for adoption is tantam
John,
technically ICANN is only really in charge of the gTLD name space as the
ccTLD one depends on the ISO 2 letter alpha code elements over which
ICANN has no control.
el
On 2020-06-14 02:03 , John Levine wrote:
> In article <8bf10121-cf4b-4341-bc40-f427a8f4b...@apnic.net> you write:
>> This i
technically ICANN is only really in charge of the gTLD name space as the
ccTLD one depends on the ISO 2 letter alpha code elements over which
ICANN has no control.
I suppose this might make sense as an informational RFC about here's
what is likely to happen if you squat on these names that proba
