Ted,
The
big problem others have been pointing to is that DISCUSSes are
not being used to say here is a technical issue, for which any
solution acceptable to the community is fine, but are instead being
used to say here is a technical issue, and here's what it would
take to satisfy me that it
Speaking as an individual who has also participated in the work of other
standards organizations - In other SDOs, the IEEE 802 for example,
suggesting a fix for a problem detected in the text at ballot time is
not only welcome, but sometimes the recommended if not mandatory
practice.
Dan
In a more sane world, no one rational would want to build a
business or other activity around a TLD named local. But
this is demonstrably not a sane world.
Right. I can see the business case for this. :-(
But at least in the first round, the barrier to entry is so high that
I don't see that
Which brings up a question can a TLD be used like a domain name?
not just http://microsoft/ but [EMAIL PROTECTED] will likely to fail to.
james
2008/7/2 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether
http://microsoft/ or other similar
blush
Thanks!
Steve
On Jul 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means
that there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things
different than we are.
One of the few ICANN committees that actually works is the SSAC, the
(It's always a bummer when ietf-general turns into ICANN-general, but
in this case it seems like a useful discussion because the IETF will
probably be asked policy questions for various proposed TLDs.)
At 10:17 AM -0400 7/2/08, Thomas Narten wrote:
In a more sane world, no one rational
Paul,
But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
include input from the IETF ICANN rep. I see little reason why or how
a TLD that would be damaging, confusing, or otherwise bad for the
IETF
At 9:30 AM -0700 7/2/08, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
include input from the IETF ICANN rep. I see little reason why or how
a TLD that would be damaging, confusing,
--On Tuesday, 01 July, 2008 09:58 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether
http://microsoft/ or other similar corporate TLDs would work
as intended with deployed legacy browsers.
I suspect (but have not tried) that
Eric,
Eric Rosen wrote:
- Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol extensions for
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS
Should be P2MP and MP2MP (multipoint-to-multipoint) MPLS; we wouldn't want
to suddenly find out that half of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp is out of
While I appreciate the kind words and deference to SSAC, and while we
would undoubtedly concur with recommendations to reserve names
like .local, ICANN actually listens to the IETF more directly.
Moreover, there is a specific slot on the Board of ICANN for a
Liaison from the IETF. Thomas
--On Wednesday, 02 July, 2008 10:45 -0700 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:30 AM -0700 7/2/08, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
But it is still the case that an application for say .local
would need to go through some review process (regardless of
price) which would include input from the IETF
Which brings up a question can a TLD be used like a domain name?
not just http://microsoft/ but [EMAIL PROTECTED] will likely to fail to.
james
The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.
We added .ARPA to all the single label hostnames as part
of
Mark Andrews said:
The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.We added .ARPA to
all the single label hostnames as partof that process. The only hold over is
localhost andthat is implemeted locally, not in the global DNS. No sane TLD
operator can expect http://tld; or [EMAIL
At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
Now, for example, I happen to believe that one-off typing error
is guaranteed to yield a false positive, is a more than
sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter
domains at either the top or second levels and to advise
Mark Andrews wrote:
The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.
As noted in RFC 2821 as one dot required syntax, also
mentioned in RFC 3696. Recently *overruled* by 2821bis.
No sane TLD operator can expect http://tld; or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to work reliably.
Certainly not
Hi Rich
I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
do something about -- I would think they would, since it seems to have global
significance. But I can fix it from this end.
Specifically, the problem Dave
17 matches
Mail list logo
