On 7/7/15 4:48 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
It seems to me that UM did appear in the root and then was taken out of
service. I doubt we’d want to see it assigned to another country or territory
in the near future. I’d put it in subset 8 unless it were brought back to life
in the service of the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/07/2015 08:00 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>>
>> o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to
>> subset 4?
>
> what is needed is a process that is less ambiguous and simpler to
> evaluate than RFC6761 to reserve strings in sub
Thanks. Minor comments in line below.
Steve
On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts.
>
> Edward Lewis writes:
>
>>
>> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. (ICANN) Two letter
On Jul 6, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
> wrote:
>
>> 3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
>> the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in the future. Names in
>> this subset may move to subs
Putting the focus on this part of Steve¹s original email for now:
On 7/5/15, 7:26 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
wrote:
>
>o ICANN speaks indistinctly about subset 5.
>
>o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to subset
>4?
Ideally, I would argue we may not need s
Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
P
Jaap,
This was a mistake on my part. I was working at my laptop and didn’t have
space to see everything at once.
As a separate matter I didn’t see a copy of my submission, and I incorrectly
assumed it hadn’t gotten through, perhaps because attachments weren’t allowed.
I was wrong, but it cau
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:03 PM, manning wrote:
> Why, yes, I still do. (and it can be found in the IEtF archives)
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-01
>
> As to why, perhaps I am missing the obvious, but if SUDSTA proceeds, does
> it matter if the origin IP
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:20 AM, wrote:
> Akira Kato and I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
>
>
> ...
> --
> Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS
>
> I am concerned that the "AN" flag allows for easy zone wal
This draft was updated to address all the issues from the last meeting,
and it's been ready for adoption This starts a Call for Adoption for
draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-
As we've been having this thread around TLDs, I noticed this item in Hacker
News this morning of a new overlay network that is designed to use hashes of
public keys for addressing:
https://github.com/zrm/snow
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9843373
http://trustiosity.com/snow/how-it-works.h
John Dickinson wrote:
>
> We have just submitted a -02 update to the 5966bis draft.
I have read through this draft. It looks in good shape to me.
A general comment: can you please grep for lower-case RFC 2119 keywords
and either upper-case them or replace them with different phrasing, so
there i
Sorry for the empty previous post.
My recollection is somewhat different from the AC "requesting" the
revocation. But then the then AC reads this list and can relate
himself if he wishes to do so.
And I was quite upset at the time because I wanted dibs on IMODI.UM
(just for the fun of it, not fo
-07-07 11:27, Bill Woodcock wrote:>
> As I'm sure our resident bad-idea-fairy can relate in greater detail,
.UM was a delegated ccTLD with SLD subdelegations and at least one user,
before the administrative contact requested that the TLD delegation be
rescinded or deactivated or whatever you want t
As I'm sure our resident bad-idea-fairy can relate in greater detail, .UM was a
delegated ccTLD with SLD subdelegations and at least one user, before the
administrative contact requested that the TLD delegation be rescinded or
deactivated or whatever you want to call it.
Just a little more co
Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts.
Edward Lewis writes:
>
> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
> wrote:
>
> >3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
> >the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in th
Akira Kato and I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
* Added reference to DLV {{RFC5074}} and imported some sentences.
* Added Aggressive Negative Caching Flag idea.
* Added detailed algorithms in Append
Steve Crocker writes:
> Folks,
>
> I`ve been watching the dialog on this list regarding to level names.
> Attached is my attempt to clarify the state of affairs and identify the
> loose ends. Both PDF and pptx versions attached, the latter in case
> someone is moved to edit the slides dir
18 matches
Mail list logo
