> On 10/24/2022 10:17 AM EDT Ben Schwartz
> wrote:
>
> >- How might or should this be reflected in the browser bar?
> >
> > Personally, I would treat an "x+y://" scheme as unrelated to "x://", and
> make the distinction clear to users
>
> >
Does the foo+alt:// uri only go to the .alt n
On Oct 24, 2022, at 1:23 PM, Brian Dickson
wrote:
> What this points out is that ".alt" is intended to protect DNS (at the root
> at least) from the effects of other namespaces.
This seems quite inaccurate. Where in the current draft does it hint at that
statement? If it is there, we should ce
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:45 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
> > Just to expand on this idea (which I quite like), the original AS112 was
> enhanced to handle new/arbitrary names, so
> > that AS112 operators don't need to do anything to support being a sink
>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 12:47 PM Timothy Mcsweeney
wrote:
...
> You can't use the "+" in the scheme component of the uri scheme. It's a
> reserved sub-delim.
>
RFC 3986, Section 3.1:
Scheme names consist of a sequence of characters beginning with a
letter and followed by any combination
Thanks for this update. I think the DoC draft is much improved by this
separation.
On DoC:
0. Why isn't DoH via CoAP gateway sufficient? The draft should explain.
If the answer is message size overhead, please put a number on it.
1. The TTL rewriting proposed here is notably different from DoH
Either we worry about impact on the root servers and consider not reserving the
name at all because of infinite peaks through ignorance of legacy software...
... Or we worry about it and consider doing something about it and decide
whether what we can do will be good enough ...
... Or we ju
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Brian Dickson wrote:
Just to expand on this idea (which I quite like), the original AS112 was
enhanced to handle new/arbitrary names, so
that AS112 operators don't need to do anything to support being a sink for new
domains.
This was done in RFC7534 and RFC7535, using the
The discussion about AS112 changes the document from "don't ever put this in
the root zone" to "put this in the root zone this special way".
I believe the former is wy easier than the latter, particularly for the
very limited used we expect this name to have.
--Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Des
Wes,
Mumble. I said I wasn’t going to argue the politics further, but…
On Oct 24, 2022, at 10:49 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> David Conrad writes:
>>whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory.
> So, the
> decision made at the time was: once the WG has concluded th
Op 24 okt. 2022 om 14:18 heeft David Conrad het volgende
geschreven:
> Given the AS112 approach doesn’t result in code change, would you be ok with
> using it with .alt?
As Brian mentioned, there are two AS112 approaches. One involves some amount of
lame delegation, and the other involves DNA
Hi!
Am 21.09.22 um 21:31 schrieb Ben Schwartz:
Preparing a separate document on compact DNS seems like a fine start to me.
We just published Version -01 of the draft [1]. The most significant
change in regard to this discussion is that Section 5.1 was now moved to
its own draft [2]. We are h
Libor,
On Oct 24, 2022, at 9:11 AM, libor.peltan wrote:
>> The root of the DNS is a commons, supported by volunteers who are paying out
>> of their own pocket to provision a global infrastructure. I’m personally not
>> comfortable recommending techniques that can add undefined (could be
>> min
David Conrad writes:
> whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory.
>
> After WG LC, I propose that the WG chairs, ADs, IAB, and ICANN liaison
> discuss this. My current expectation is that we probably will send ICANN
> a
> liaison to politely le
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 12:33 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> David Conrad wrote on 2022-10-23 12:00:
> > Rob,
>
> not rod, but i have three comments.
>
> > On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of
> > the intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of
> > di
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 7:18 AM Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 4:31 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben and Wes,
>> On 21.10.22 20:45, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better
>> as a scheme modifier: https+alt://...
Rob,
On Oct 24, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>> whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory.
> After WG LC, I propose that the WG chairs, ADs, IAB, and ICANN liaison
> discuss this. My current expectation is that we probably will send ICANN a
> liaison
> On 10/24/2022 10:17 AM EDT Ben Schwartz
> wrote:
>
> >- How might or should this be reflected in the browser bar?
> >
> > Personally, I would treat an "x+y://" scheme as unrelated to "x://", and
> make the distinction clear to users
>
You can't use the "+" in the scheme component of t
Hi,
Dne 23. 10. 22 v 21:00 David Conrad napsal(a):
The root of the DNS is a commons, supported by volunteers who are
paying out of their own pocket to provision a global infrastructure.
I’m personally not comfortable recommending techniques that can add
undefined (could be minimal, might not
On Oct 20, 2022, at 5:02 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker
wrote:
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05
> ## Discuss
>
> ###
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)
Author : Paul Hoffman
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dn
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 4:31 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Ben and Wes,
> On 21.10.22 20:45, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better
> as a scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common pattern for
> modifications to URI schemes (c.f.
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : DNS Error Reporting
Authors : Roy Arends
Matt Larson
Filename
Hi David,
Thanks, again with no hats, except for my comment on the first question.
Please see inline …
From: David Conrad
Sent: 23 October 2022 20:01
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Possible alt-tld last call?
Rob,
On Oct 22, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Rob Wil
23 matches
Mail list logo
