On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>>> So it seems that this question is already a matter of local policy,
>>> which given the number and quality of the divergent views seems
>>> eminently reasonable. Can we move on now?
>>
>> No, because relying on "local policy" is not suffic
On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 05:16, Keith Moore wrote:
>> That's the point - search lists are not appropriate most of the time, and
>> it's very hard for software to distinguish the cases where they are
>> potentially appropri
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
>
> --On 24 October 2011 07:29:55 -0400 Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in
>>>> which domain names are used, the expectation is
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 24 October 2011 06:53:05 -0400 Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>> I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the contexts in which
>> domain names are used, the expectation is that a domain name that
>> c
On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:08 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> I can't agree with this statement. As others have said, the practice of
>>> using a search list to allow 'ssh foo.bar' to reach 'foo.bar.example.com'
>>> isn't going anywhere, and there are a lot of people that make extensive use
>>> o
On Oct 23, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> On 2011/10/22, at 15:21, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I think we're all in agreement that dot-terminated names (e.g.,
>>>
On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 08:13, Keith Moore wrote:
>> Names containing "." should not be subject to search lists. Given a
>> name like foo.bar, there's no reliable way to tell whether "bar" is a
>> TLD
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> IMO: search lists are useful, but only with "bare names" - and the behavior
>> of those should be implementation dependent. Trying to nail it down will
>> bre
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> And honestly I don't see why handling of non-DNS names like "foo" is in
>> scope for MIF.
>
> Because such names are typically resolved using DNS search
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM,
> wrote:
>> There could perhaps be another draft, which would say that if name is "foo"
>> it should not be appended with search lists but "foo." might? And whatever
>> other differences in their handling would be, an
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Would the following text be then ok? Please note I changed the domain
> addition from SHOULD to MAY, if there is going to be attempt to
> deprecate/redefine/update search list logics. Or do you think it should
> remain SHOULD?
> --
> 4.6. Int
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Do you agree that nodes' behavioral differences between "foo" and "foo."
> names is out of the scope of this particular MIF draft?
That's not how I would state it. I think handling of "foo." is something that
IETF can define, but handling of
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:19 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except
>> perhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily be
It might that IETF should consider "bare names" out of its scope, except
perhaps to say that they're not DNS names, they don't have to necessarily be
mappable to DNS names, and that their use and behavior is host and
application-dependent.
Keith
On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter w
I sent this first from the wrong address, so apologies to those who
> see it twice.
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:23:15AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> I don't see why IETF should give a flying *#&(*#$ what the owners of
>> brand-name gTLDs want. Brand-name
On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> When new gTLDs are introduced it is likely for brand-name gTLDs that they
> will wish to use bare names in the DNS (i.e. a single label hostname) for
> their primary web sites.
I don't see why IETF should give a flying *#&(*#$ what the owners o
16 matches
Mail list logo
