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
of the
On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 24 October 2011 07:29:55 -0400 Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
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
contains
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 sufficient for
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.,
example.) should not be subject to search lists. I personally don't have
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 or a subdomain of something in the search list.
I've been
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com 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,
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com 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
On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:15 AM, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
teemu.savolai...@nokia.com 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
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 lists, and at
lease one mechanism
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
break too much widespread practice
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
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
mappable to DNS names, and that their use
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 of
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 gTLDs are an exceedingly stupid
idea, and treating single label names
14 matches
Mail list logo
