On 5 July 2013 02:02, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> Someone who should know better wrote:
>
> > Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> > is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> > everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder
> >Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
> >confidence they have all the clue necessary?
>
> Probably because they don't think that new TLDs are particularly
> useful or valuable.
Oops, just a minute, gotta grab the popcorn and cooler for this
one...ok, proceed.
In message <51d61b2b.8020...@abenaki.wabanaki.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams write
s:
> Someone who should know better wrote:
>
> > Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> > is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> > everywhere if you want it. Na
>Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
>confidence they have all the clue necessary?
Probably because they don't think that new TLDs are particularly
useful or valuable.
R's,
John
>I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
>support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
>"our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
I've read the IPv6 and DNSSEC parts of a lot of the applications,
including the ones that aren't backed b
> I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
> who are able to privide you with a connection that will do IPv6.
In this context the universe of 50 providers are registry service
providers, existing and entrant. Verisign, NeuStar, Afilias, CORE,
AusReg, ISC, ...
Your side w
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 18:02:35 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
> higher technical and financial requirements to pick one of a universe
> of fewer than 50 service providers,
I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
who are able to privide you with a connection that will do
On 7/4/13 6:23 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Sigh. DNSSEC and Draft Applicant Guidebook.
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Draft Applicant's Guidebook.
On 7/4/2013 8:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
And this was true when the v6 and DEC requirements entered the DAG?
OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
confidence they have all the clue ne
Someone who should know better wrote:
> Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
> definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
And this
In message <9ff40d24-169e-4568-9f25-ee00beeed...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman
writes:
> Well, for starters there's whole truckloads of surplus gear that you
> can't get for pennies and use successfully.
Surplus IPv6 capable gear has been around for a long while now.
Remember most gear has had I
In message <51d5c750.4090...@nic-naa.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams writes:
> On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> > support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> > "our older gear/software/a
Well, for starters there's whole truckloads of surplus gear that you can't get
for pennies and use successfully.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:34:41 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
>
>> #insert us
On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> "our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is no
On 7/4/13 10:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
> significantly improved by fire insurance?
Cute John. Let me know when you've run out of neat things other people
should do.
Eric
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:34:41 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
> #insert usual junk from *nog v6 evangelicals that .africa and .eos
> (Basque Autonomous Region) must drive v6 adoption from their
> ever-so-deep-pockets, or the net will die.
I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnss
>Anyone care to advance evidence that either zone has been, not "will
>someday be", significantly improved by the adoption of DS records?
>Evidence, not rhetoric, please.
I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
significantly improved by fire insurance?
On 7/4/13 8:00 AM, Ted Cooper wrote:
> Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
> for a virgin TLD.
In the evolution of the DAG I pointed out that both the DNSSEC and the
IPv6 requirements, as well as other SLA requirements, were
significantly in excess of those pla
>> "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
>> city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
>
>Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
>for a virgin TLD.
Yes. See the AGB, to which I sent a link a few messages back.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Ted Cooper
wrote:
> On 03/07/13 11:12, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
> > city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
>
> Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
> for a vir
On 03/07/13 11:12, Scott Weeks wrote:
> "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
> city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
for a virgin TLD.
On 2013-07-03, at 01:04, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"?
>
> We have multiple problems here, friends.
>
> Focus.
I think you mean "de-focus". :-)
Joe
+10
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"?
>
> We have multiple problems here, friends.
>
> Focus.
>
> - ferg
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry
--- rube...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Rubens Kuhl
> Thank you for explaining this. Again, probably.
Summary: there are residual risks, but the checks and balances of the
process are likely to stop bad actors, at the cost of also stopping some
good actors. Error in the side of caution preferred.
In message <51d3b03a.5010...@cox.net>, Larry Sheldon writes:
> On 7/2/2013 11:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about
> >> the right thing.
> >
> > Because obviously, t
Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"?
We have multiple problems here, friends.
Focus.
- ferg
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>> Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worr
On 7/2/2013 11:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon
wrote:
Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about
the right thing.
Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling
DNS servers are the same kind?
I woul
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the
> right thing.
>
Because obviously, the problems of scaling router memory and scaling DNS
servers are the same kind?
Yes, having many many new TLDs introduces new prob
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> gTLDs operate under ICANN compliance regime and are required to abide by
> community policies. Will this be enough ? We don't know yet, but people have
> given some thought trying to find a way it is enough, and can require
> further mechanisms
Now you are thinking. :-)
- ferg
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the
> right thing.
>
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
> Great, Let's see what happens.
>
> If history is any teacher...
>
>
There is not much history here to look at... .cc and .tk are ccTLDs, based
out of sovereign states. They are delegated into the root by ICANN (more
precisely by IANA, which is currently a contract also granted to ICANN) and
that'
Makes me wonder if concern for routing table size is worrying about the
right thing.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> From
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-ii-agenda-2b-25jun13-en.pdf
> "Registry Operator will periodically conduct a technical analysis to assess
> whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetra
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Paul Ferguson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> > Summary: there are residual risks, but the checks and balances of the
> > process are likely to stop bad actors, at the cost of also stopping some
> > good actors. Error in the side
>Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
>guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
>
>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
>
>Ok, you're correct. I need to add that to my list of reading.
>I am just thinking about the digital divide getting larger
>(not sma
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> Summary: there are residual risks, but the checks and balances of the
> process are likely to stop bad actors, at the cost of also stopping some
> good actors. Error in the side of caution preferred.
>
You're missing the forest
If a new g
>
> Thank you for explaining this. Again, probably.
>
> So the cities in those countries could buy them (if they could
> afford them) but not the countries? So .portvila is available,
> but not .vanuatu?
>
Yes. Country names will be part of the expansion of the ccTLD space, where
usually countri
On 7/2/13 7:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
> guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
There really should be a kinder introduction to those who lack basic
clue than to attempt to read the last version of the DAG, even for the
Am
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Ok, you're correct. I need to add that to my list of reading.
> I am just thinking about the digital divide getting larger
> (not smaller) as these places are writing about on their
> various technical mailing lists. That kind of money is not
--- jo...@iecc.com wrote:
From: "John Levine"
>I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators
>paying the $186,000 then ...
Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
>I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators
>paying the $186,000 then ...
Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
--- rube...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Rubens Kuhl
> As places like that see $186,000 as small change, I wonder
> what other countries (much less the cities within them)
> like .nu, .sb or .vu will do? For them this is an
> astronomical number. Someone's about to hit a financial
> home run reminisc
Thank you Rubens, you saved me the effort.
Eric
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> < careful there may be a troll in here... :) >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nyc
>
> "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
> city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
>
.nyc has been approved by ICANN M
< careful there may be a troll in here... :) >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nyc
"As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
As places like that see $186,000 as small change, I wonder
what other countries (much less the citie
46 matches
Mail list logo
