On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:50:37PM -0800,
David Conrad wrote
a message of 63 lines which said:
> This implies every time the IETF makes use of 6761, those tables of
> special labels is going to need to be updated (and I suspect the
> chances of this being done universally and consistently appr
David Conrad wrote:
>
> "My point was exactly that the local stub resolver (that is, the library
> on the system that issues to name resolution requests, not the part of
> the name resolution system that does the work, be it DNS, mDNS, YP, or
> whatever) will be expected to distinguish between rea
Tony,
On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> David Conrad wrote:
>> Haven't we been here before (e.g., .bitnet/.csnet/.uucp)?
> To me this sounds a lot like private namespaces in the DNS which
> correspond to private networks - the analogy being that these special
> non-DNS names often
Stephane,
On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:44 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> It seems a criticism of RFC 6761, not of the current registration proposal.
Yes and no. Yes, I think 6761 is broken in parts (somehow I missed discussion
of the draft), however the issue I'm worried about is the proliferation
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:14 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Stephane,
>
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:44 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> It seems a criticism of RFC 6761, not of the current registration proposal.
>
> Yes and no. Yes, I think 6761 is broken in parts (somehow I missed
> discussion of the
On Wednesday 4 December 2013 at 14:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
> I really like .alt -- it makes it clear that this is an alternate namespace
> type thing, mirrors the usenet alt convention, etc.
> .p2p seems less descriptive, and not all alternate things are peer to peer.
I think it's pertinent t
Hi David,
At 09:14 04-12-2013, David Conrad wrote:
On the minus side, management of .ARPA is a part of the IANA
functions contract which implies changes will require US DoC NTIA
approval, so I'd agree that there is a potential for delays and ...
non-technical discussion.
.arpa is an IETF matt
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi David,
> At 09:14 04-12-2013, David Conrad wrote:
>> On the minus side, management of .ARPA is a part of the IANA functions
>> contract which implies changes will require US DoC NTIA approval, so I'd
>> agree that there is a potential for delays and
On Wednesday 4 December 2013 at 15:01, SM wrote:
> At 09:14 04-12-2013, David Conrad wrote:
> > On the minus side, management of .ARPA is a part of the IANA
> > functions contract which implies changes will require US DoC NTIA
> > approval, so I'd agree that there is a potential for delays and
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Wednesday 4 December 2013 at 15:01, SM wrote:
>> At 09:14 04-12-2013, David Conrad wrote:
>>> On the minus side, management of .ARPA is a part of the IANA
>>> functions contract which implies changes will require US DoC NTIA
>>> approval, so I'd
On Dec 4, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 4 December 2013 at 14:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> I really like .alt -- it makes it clear that this is an alternate namespace
>> type thing, mirrors the usenet alt convention, etc.
>> .p2p seems less descriptive, and not all a
11 matches
Mail list logo
