Quoting John Levine on Wednesday May 01, 2024:
>
> We all know the people at IANA who run .INT. If we can't persuade them
> that this has becomes a problem that needs to be fixed, how urgent is
> it likely to be?
No persuasion necessary. There has been an ongoing project to update
the signing app
Quoting John Levine on Saturday May 06, 2023:
> >The IANA Function Operator does so for all ccTLDs (which would imply all
> >TLDs).
>
> Indeed, but some of them are lame anyway. Here's today's report:
> ...
> There are 96 more that timed out but I can't tell whether they really aren't
> there
Quoting Masataka Ohta on Friday November 12, 2021:
>
> > The operational decisions relating to these things have already been
> > made, as I understand it -- the delegations no longer exist. Kim and
> > Amanda's document seems to have two purposes: (1) to document this
> > operational reality, and
Colleagues,
I wanted to draw your attention to an Internet Draft we’ve developed,
its goal is to formally deprecate a number of historic “.int”
domains that were designated for Internet infrastructure purposes
decades ago and appear for all intents and purposes obsolete. After some
limited consult
Hi Mark,
Quoting Mark Andrews on Tuesday December 12, 2017:
>
> HOME.ARPA. SOAA.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2017121101
> 1800 900 604800 86400
> HOME.ARPA.NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
..
> HOME.ARPA. DNAME EMPTY.AS112.ARPA.
It is unclear to me how this avoids having ro
Quoting Stephane Bortzmeyer on Friday November 10, 2017:
>
> > I'll note that from a technical/mechanical perspective, ICANN's and
> > Verisign's root zone management systems already know how to deal
> > with delegations. A DNAME in the root would require an unknown level
> > of development by bot
Quoting Andrew Sullivan on Thursday April 30, 2015:
| >
| > "Country" is a loaded term. I don't have a better suggestion in mind but
| > there are many instances where a ccTLD is a territory, etc. I don't mean
| > to open a rathole, just point this out.
|
| If we changed this to say, "A TLD tha
On 30/03/2011, at 7:10 AM, Paul Vixie , Akira Kato wrote:
> The authors would like to make the draft either of
> - Move it to publish as Informational RFC (after another WGLC?)
> - Withdraw the document
>
> However, the authors are happy to continue to improve the document
> provided if the commu
Hi Joao,
On 14/09/09 9:53 AM, "joao damas" wrote:
> could the ITAR have a serial number that could be checked without
> having to download and parse the whole file, to enable quick checks
> from consumers of the ITAR information that would not overwhelm either
> end of the communication?
There
Hi Mark,
On 11/09/09 4:47 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> Publish new DNSKEY, publish new DS, wait at least the max TTL of
> the old DS/DNSSKEY TTLs. Remove old DS, remove old DNSKEY.
>
> The same thing should be happening with ITAR. Publish new DNSKEY,
> publish new DS, wait the prescribed per
On 11/09/09 4:21 PM, "Kim Davies" wrote:
>
> Right now, since the initial activity populating the repository, there are
> only a couple of ITAR change events per month, but we have no pattern as to
> when they can occur.
Actually, I can be more specific:
2009-01-20 sig
Hi Mark,
On 11/09/09 4:01 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> IANA still has not provided timing guidance.
>
> IANA can you please specifiy a maximum polling interval on this
> page and inform the TLD's using ITAR of what it is. A minimum
> polling interval would also be useful but is not crucial.
On 8/09/09 6:07 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>>
>> As for when the current .PR key was listed on the interim trust anchor
>> repository at IANA, 2009-09-01 21:45:06.072 UTC would be the precise time.
>
> So ITAR consumers had 2 days to respond to this key rollover event.
> Did PR inform you immedia
On 8/09/09 11:52 AM, "Chris Thompson" wrote:
>
> ISC supposedly get their data for TLDs from the IANA ITAR. That's certainly
> up to date now at https://itar.iana.org/anchors/anchors.xml but it would be
> more than interesting to know how long that has been the case. (As I recall,
> PR had to be
On 9/06/08 11:56 AM, "David Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>> I'm curious: have you consulted with the various TLD-related
>>> organizations (e.g., ccNSO, gNSO, CENTR, APTLD, AfTLD, LACTLD,
>>> etc.) on
>>> how to solve this problem?
>>
>>
Dean Anderson wrote:
> The ICANN announcement doesn't seem to have come through on DNSOP as
> Patrick indicated. I can't find it in my archive Did anyone else
> get it?
The announcement was posted on 24 October to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED],
as well as some oth
Zvezdelin Vladov wrote:
>
> I didn't know where to go to, for such kind of
> problem, so I am writing here.
>
> When a resolve for a ccTLD .bg, there is
> a loop going on, maybe somewhere at auth01.ns.uu.net.
FYI, auth01.ns.uu.net was removed from the root zone as an authority for
.bg on 2007-0
17 matches
Mail list logo
