> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2022, at 11:24 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>> But I also think that if it is expected that name systems may "go rogue"
>> e.g. use a new innovative new string encoding, then the registry might have
>> trouble listing/regi
Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 12:17:
So maybe Unicode provides sensible guide lines for acceptable strings under
.alt _for the registry_?
just... no. if somebody wants to put binary gibberish "under" .ALT, in a way
that browser plugins never get to see because it's not valid uni
> On 08/22/2022 3:46 PM EDT Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
>
> Martin,
> You should talk to Eliot about using the Drop# URI. I think he is getting
> ready to push it upstream anyways and you could potentially just add it to
> your draft. Then you would have a URI for your GNS that is and is not
Martin,
> On 08/22/2022 3:17 PM EDT Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
> I mean, https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
> looks ok because "URN Namespace" is well-defined as a readable string with a
> specific encoding.
You should talk to Eliot about using the Drop#
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Tim Wicinski, a Chair
of the dnsop working group.
-
Working Group Name: Domain Name System Operations
Area Name: Operations and Management Area
Session Requester: Tim Wicinski
Nu
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:47, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:24:
>>> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:15, Paul Vixie
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> noting: by describing this as a reserved name subspace, we implicitly
>>> expect that the presentation form of any namespa
Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:24:
On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:15, Paul Vixie wrote:
...
noting: by describing this as a reserved name subspace, we implicitly expect that the
presentation form of any namespace thus enabled will be "compatible enough"
with DNS presentation form to
On Aug 22, 2022, at 11:24 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin
wrote:
> But I also think that if it is expected that name systems may "go rogue" e.g.
> use a new innovative new string encoding, then the registry might have
> trouble listing/registering the 2LD "byte string" chosen by the name system?
This
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 20:15, Paul Vixie
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:02:
>> ...
>>> On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>> ...
>>> On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
>> I do not see why names under .alt must be compliant standard DNS
Schanzenbach, Martin wrote on 2022-08-22 11:02:
...
On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis wrote:
...
On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
I do not see why names under .alt must be compliant standard DNS names for any
reason.
+1.
noting: by describing this as a reserved name sub
> On 08/22/2022 2:01 PM EDT Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> You can't have a "root" label in the middle of a domain-style name,
> because the presence of the length == 0 byte for the root label is what
> marks the _end_ of the name parsing sequence.
Sorry, I guess I meant authoritative name server for a
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 19:07, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> I would prefer that they choose whatever is best for their own
>> non-DNS user community, which might still be ASCII.
>
> Since this came up earlier in the thread(s), I would also strongly a
On 22/08/2022 18:42, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
Why would they do that? And why wouldn't they just serve up their
own root from within a subdomain they already have. Maybe everyone
should have their own root, I mean isn't that what this .Alt
registry is??
You can't have a "root" label in
Inline
> On 08/22/2022 1:07 PM EDT Ray Bellis wrote:
> Since this came up earlier in the thread(s), I would also strongly
> advise that users of .alt do not stray from the DNS standard
Why would they do that?
And why wouldn't they just serve up their own root from within a subdomain they
alr
On 22/08/2022 15:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I would prefer that they choose whatever is best for their own
non-DNS user community, which might still be ASCII.
Since this came up earlier in the thread(s), I would also strongly
advise that users of .alt do not stray from the DNS standard of
-
On Aug 22, 2022, at 2:41 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> The draft doesn’t specify if this registry is restricted to ASCII LDH or not.
Correct. Do you feel that it should specify that level of detail? Other
registries for domain names do not have this level of detail attached to them,
but this o
> On 22. Aug 2022, at 11:41, Andrew McConachie wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20 Aug 2022, at 2:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>>
>>> So, it is perfectly acceptable (in my view) f
On 20 Aug 2022, at 2:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
Hiya,
On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote:
So, it is perfectly acceptable (in my view) for it to have:
Reference Name
-
a-cool-document foo.alt
anot
18 matches
Mail list logo
