In article you write:
>you've got a point - why not just include all 43?
I think because on any real network, at least 41 of them will not be
used, and there's no way to guess which.
While I think that these non-ccTLDs are as good a candidate as we're
ever going to find for TLDs on which you can
On 6/14/2020 5:53 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Michael StJohns wrote:
That said, I'd prefer it if the document selected a few (<=10) codes
from these ranges so that filtering may be built into
various servers and clients to prevent leakage.
Then you would expect DNS libraries
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Michael StJohns wrote:
That said, I'd prefer it if the document selected a few (<=10) codes from these
ranges so that filtering may be built into
various servers and clients to prevent leakage.
Then you would expect DNS libraries and recursive servers to treat the
select
On Jun 14, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> I wonder what would have happened if this RFC was available a time before
> IDNs were defined, someone decided to use .xn and assume xn was only an
> internal use thing.
As the IDN WG was trying to figure out how to make internationalized d
Roy et al -
Is there a document from ICANN taking a position on the assignment of
TLDs based on ISO3166 assignments?
When Jon was doing this he was adamant about following their lead -
rather than having to make political decisions about what was a
country. The main role he had was not the
In article <29a6a711-3641-4e9b-bf07-8d9e66056...@nic.br> you write:
>
>I wonder what would have happened if this RFC was available a time before IDNs
>were defined, someone
>decided to use .xn and assume xn was only an internal use thing.
I suppose we would find out how much broken software looke
I wonder what would have happened if this RFC was available a time before IDNs
were defined, someone decided to use .xn and assume xn was only an internal use
thing.
Rubens
> On 12 Jun 2020, at 12:12, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions
Hi
> On 14 Jun 2020, at 14:59, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
> Hi Roy, Ed,
> At 08:12 AM 12-06-2020, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
>> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>
> It is difficult for me to take a pos
Hi Roy, Ed,
At 08:12 AM 12-06-2020, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
It is difficult for me to take a position on the adoption of this
draft as I don't have enough informa
On Jun 13, 2020, at 2:39 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of policy
> regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades ago, and
> in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such discussions should
> take
10 matches
Mail list logo
