> On 3. Aug 2022, at 16:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2022, at 12:36 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>>
>> Having now read further I am pretty convinced that the advisory is not
>> useful in the context of this thread discussion.
>> Ist sais
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 14:06, Vittorio Bertola
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Il 04/08/2022 08:40 CEST Martin Schanzenbach ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> Anyway, going to ICANN in order to collect a TLD is not a reasonable process
>> for
>> publishing our draft.
>> We would not even know what the process would b
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 16:17, Vittorio Bertola
> wrote:
>
>> Il 04/08/2022 14:37 CEST Schanzenbach, Martin ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> You are trying to kill it using, what, political arguments?
>
> Yes. There is nothing technical in this discussion. We
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 18:01, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 4. Aug 2022, at 16:17, Vittorio Bertola
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Il 04/08/2022 14:37 CEST Schanzenbach, Martin ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>> You are trying to k
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 21:28, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
Hi David,
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 12:01 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>> But the resolution protocol is technology-neutral. I invite you to re-read
>> the draft. We are not proposing a namespac
> On 15. Aug 2022, at 20:25, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15/08/2022 19:17, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> of course i meant that each such namespace would get its own
>> "sub-domain" under .alt (e.g., .GNS.ALT).
>
> Someone also gets to solve the problem of how you get a CA/Browser Forum
> Approve
Hi,
> On 16. Aug 2022, at 16:32, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:On 16/08/2022 03:01, John Levine wrote:
>>> Right. If it's FCFS, I am sure I am not the only person who will be
>>> waiting at the gate with thousands of preemptive r
Hi Brian,
thank you for the feedback.
> On 19. Aug 2022, at 16:46, Brian Dickson
> wrote:
>
> One tidbit that might have been overlooked, is that draft-schanzen-gns (and
> the various documents it references, including stuff in github) has a
> technical problem.
>
> The TL;DR: is that nsswi
> On 19. Aug 2022, at 17:06, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Brian,
>
> thank you for the feedback.
>
>> On 19. Aug 2022, at 16:46, Brian Dickson
>> wrote:
>>
>> One tidbit that might have been overlooked, is that d
> On 20. Aug 2022, at 03:29, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 20/08/2022 01:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> wrote:
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>>
>>> So, it is perfectly acceptable (
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 11:41, Andrew McConachie wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20 Aug 2022, at 2:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>>
>>> So, it is perfectly acceptable (in my view) f
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> I would prefer that they choose whatever is best for their own
>> non-DNS user community, which might still be ASCII.
>
> Since this came up earlier in the thread(s), I would also strongly a
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:15, Paul Vixie
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:02:
>> ...
>>> On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>> ...
>>> On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> ...
>
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:47, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:24:
>>> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:15, Paul Vixie
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> noting: by describing this as a reserved name subspace, we impli
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2022, at 11:24 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>> But I also think that if it is expected that name systems may "go rogue"
>> e.g. use a new innovative new string encoding, then the regis
> On 23. Aug 2022, at 13:02, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/08/2022 10:22, Andrew McConachie wrote:
>
>> The only restriction that seems reasonable to me is prohibiting zero length
>> strings. This list convinced me other restrictions would be a bad idea.
>
> There will be a very long tai
> On 23. Aug 2022, at 16:47, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:29 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> On 8/23/22 07:02, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> There will be a very long tail of systems out there that do not know about
> ".alt".
>
> How would those systems respond when
Hi,
"
This document uses ".alt" for the pseudo-TLD in the presentation
format for the DNS, corresponding to a 0x03616c7400 suffix in DNS
wire format. The presentation and on-the-wire formats for non-DNS
protocols might be different.
"
I had to read this 3 times
Hi,
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 16:28, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 8/24/22 10:13, Joe Abley wrote:
>> So the question is not whether to allow mixed capitalisation; the question
>> is why we would intentionally change a fundamental expectation of domain
>> names to accommodate names an
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 18:46, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>>
>> GNS, as in the protocol, does *not* consider "Example.gns.Alt" and
>> "Example.gns.alt" to be the same name.
>
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 20:22, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>> We (I) learned that this is a good approach after conversations with our
>> reviewers in particular since it is very difficult to distinguish what
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 22:13, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
>> On 24. Aug 2022, at 20:22, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We (I) learned
Hi,
FWIW our draft [1] which is currently in IESG conflict review is related to
this "issue".
Namely, the question of namespace ambiguity is discussed in it [2] as we were
unable to register a Special-Use TLD in the past [3] (as some of you may
remember).
There already have been discussions wit
> On 2. Aug 2022, at 14:39, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2022 13.53, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>> This is not an oversight (altough I have to admin it did not occur to me
>> that this a valid DNS TLD at the time of writing). [...]
>>
> Oh, I understood that this DNSOP thread - notably
Having now read further I am pretty convinced that the advisory is not useful
in the context of this thread discussion.
Ist sais at the end that [1] was the "impetus" for the advisory.
However, [1] states that
"Why not use .alt?
The proposed .alt presudo-TLD is specifically only for use as a
25 matches
Mail list logo
