On 07/19/2015 05:27 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>>>
>>
>> By this logic, using a FCFS 'registry' model implies at least enough
>> information (if not a requirement) for some of tracking the registrant
>> to confirm continued use, transfer, release or abandonment at the very
>> least, no?
>
> To the e
On 07/26/2015 09:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> So, I'm not attempting to defend a business model as such. I'm
> instead arguing that, if we act to create the competition we're
> talking about, we endanger ourselves.
Given that Tor, GNUnet, I2P and NameCoin have all been developed outside
of t
On 09/03/2015 04:54 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I thought .onion was tied closely to the TOR protocol, so I have no idea
> why the second sentence in this paragraph is here, or what it means, and
> neither the string "TOR" nor the string "onion" appear in RFC 7230, so
> chasing that reference didn
Dear DNSOP / chairs,
The same applies to the various P2P drafts:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-
bit/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-gns/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-i2p/
https://d
Dear Tim,
I'm sorry to hear you had to go into rehab, but despite threatening your
recovery, let me remind you that your WG update fails to mention the P2P
name drafts. Could you please publicly state how IETF plans to proceed
with those?
I'm again asking DNSOP to be fair and follow the same pro
Dear str4d,
I've updated the drafts in Git as suggested. Thanks for the careful review.
Christian
On 10/02/2015 07:33 AM, str4d wrote:
> Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> Dear DNSOP / chairs,
>
>> The same applies to the various P2P drafts:
>
>> https://datatracker.
We have solicited but failed to receive any feedback from the dnsop
chairs or list on how to improve/revise the draft. Hence, there are
currently no updates. I continue to await the chairs asking for last
call on this.
On 11/22/2015 12:44 AM, Rajesh Gupta wrote:
> Expiration of this is coming up
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
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
On 12/07/2013 12:02 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> 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
On 12/09/2013 02:19 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> Beyond aesthetics, what arguments are there again against
>> appending ".icann" to reference the ICANN-managed root zone?
>
> We can't even get new RR types deployed on the Internet (e.g., see
> type 99) and you're suggesting we try to change pretty m
On 12/10/2013 06:01 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> (see https://gnunet.org/svn/gnunet/src/gns/nss/nss_query_gns.c)
>
> "Not Found
>
> The requested URL /svn/gnunet/src/gns/nss/nss_query_gns.c was not found on
> this server."
Sorry, typo: https://gnunet.org/svn/gnunet/src/gns/nss/nss_gns_query.c
-C
Dear Andrew,
First of all, thanks for your constructive feedback. I'll try to
answer some of your questions inline now, and we'll try to address
them in the next revision of the draft as best as we can as well.
On 12/31/2013 01:04 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I made some re
On 01/01/2014 12:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:06:38PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>>
>> What kind of metric do you propose, and how do you propose to acquire it?
>
> From what you're saying about the different cases, it sounds like
>
On 01/02/2014 09:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Grothoff
> wrote:
>
>> Well, my point is that if you expect everybody to first get an RFC
>> through to document everything they are doing, expect squatting.
>
> We do. And squat
On 02/16/2014 04:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Sorry, friend, but this is trolling. Or do you believe that DANE is not an
> innovation?
Well, I personally am not so sure that the delta to CERT records (RFC
4398) is all that big,
so is this really the best example you have? ;-).
__
On 03/05/2014 03:50 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:09:24PM +,
> Joe Abley wrote
> a message of 32 lines which said:
>
>> It's clear that it's possible to arrange very stable registration of
>> domains, sufficient at least for some very valuable web properties
>
On 01/05/2015 07:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Hellekin,
>
>>> For each of these names, it would be nice to see an argument as
>>> to why the names need to be TLDs as opposed to being located
>>> elsewhere in the tree.
>> A common denominator of all 6 pTLDs is that they do not use the
>> DNS tree h
On 01/05/2015 09:15 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:16:26PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> Usability. Especially on small screens (mobiles, etc.), every character
>> matters.
>
> Who even types domain names any more? On small screens, you don&
On 01/06/2015 03:03 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> This document confuses the concepts of the domain name namespace
> with
the DNS implementation of that namespace, making numerous assertions
that they must have a particular string within the namespace because
their particular application does not (nec
On 01/06/2015 11:31 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Christian,
>
>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:47 AM, Christian Grothoff
>> wrote:
>>> The DNS implementation of the singular hierarchical domain name
>>> namespace does not preclude the use of any portion of that
>>&
Dear Edward,
I think what you wrote is overall a pretty accurate analysis. What I
would want to point out that
> What is needed is a change to all applications that handle
> identifiers that resemble printed domain names so that they know how
> to resolve the names. They need to know when an ide
I did actually recently suggest to some Tor devs that they should use
onion://domain/
or tor://domain/
instead of http://, as they are indeed not using HTTP and this would be
a nice way to indicate anonymous/non-anonymous use. But, again, legacy
and usability (users these days don't even see the
rds to use for any purpose too.
>
> Christian Grothoff was arguing up-thread that that isn't quite true.
I am not sure which sentence you are referring to, but if it was
understood like that I'm sorr and I should have been more precise. Of
course one can run various TCP-based protoc
MCB is targeting authoritative DNS servers, not recursive resolvers,
and QUANTUMDNS targets caching resolvers. I suggest you read more
carefully before commenting.
On 01/24/2015 04:29 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> I have not found & delved into the MCB documents in depth, but from
> the cursory desc
MCB is targeting authoritative DNS servers, not recursive resolvers,
and QUANTUMDNS targets caching resolvers. I suggest you read more
carefully before commenting.
On 01/24/2015 04:29 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> I have not found & delved into the MCB documents in depth, but from
> the cursory desc
On 01/25/2015 09:15 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:> my question is: why do this,
rather than passing a law ("adopting an
> RFC") that reserves these names within the IANA system, such that the
NXDOMAIN
> source can reliably be the IANA root name servers?
Dear Paul,
We are also trying to "pass that law",
On 03/17/2015 03:55 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
> The reason I am not more emphatic in this matter is that the question
> as-phrased is essentially about *that* document, not this one, and I do
> not speak for or on behalf of Christian Grothoff, author of that document.
>
> Thus, I shal
esired, *friendly* "competing" short
versions without justifications might be prepared a bit later.
A new version of I-D, draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-bit-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Christian Grothoff and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-grotho
30 matches
Mail list logo
