On 8/8/2022 2:24 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Vittorio Bertola said:
1) Why should these people get for free something which everybody else is
required to pay $200'000 for?
Remember that $200K is just the starting point. Google paid $25M for
.APP, GMO paid $41M for .SHOP and Veri
It appears that Vittorio Bertola said:
>1) Why should these people get for free something which everybody else is
>required to pay $200'000 for?
Remember that $200K is just the starting point. Google paid $25M for
.APP, GMO paid $41M for .SHOP and Verisign paid $135M for .WEB.
In my experience
On 08/08/2022 14.53, Jim Reid wrote:
How about having an IANA registry of these experimental TLDs? Those strings
don’t go in the root. And they don't get added to the IETF’s special use list
and ICANN is still free to create these TLDs if/when they decide to create
more. This hypothetical IANA
Paul Hoffman wrote on 2022-08-08 06:31:
On Aug 8, 2022, at 3:16 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
...
draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld and SAC113 would give the authors of the draft you are
considering an easy method to do the type of naming they talk about in their
draft.
On Mon, 8 Aug 2022, John R Levine wrote:
It is not a viable choice outside of a few nerds who are fully capable of
getting a browser plug-in to handle gns:// URIs. Which would still allow
all DNS parsing libraries to be used on the names.
Sufficiently motivated people seem able to install
On Aug 8, 2022, at 3:16 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
> The community has more choices than Christian indicated. One is that “You”
> carve out some space for namespaces like GNS, just as George suggested.
> Warren's draft seems to comport itself to contours of that c
It is not a viable choice outside of a few nerds who are fully capable of
getting a browser plug-in to handle gns:// URIs. Which would still allow all
DNS parsing libraries to be used on the names.
Sufficiently motivated people seem able to install whatever it is you need
to browse through To
> On 8 Aug 2022, at 11:16, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
> wrote:
>
> I caution against those approaches that would set such a high bar that they
> would require researchers to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars on
> application fees alone plus who knows how much else fo
On Aug 8, 2022, at 06:16, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
>
> Ease of deployment: ability to use whatever application and OS interfaces
> such as nsswitch.conf, a plugin in a browser, etc.
The only new use of nsswitch for the “hosts” entry within the last 20 years
that I k
On Aug 8, 2022, at 02:08, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
>
>
> The name space is "almost" unitary. People deploy things like domain suffix
> search lists so that users can type "mailserver" and arrive at
> "mailserver.corp.example.com" --
That use is basically dead. It might sort of work at an
> Il 08/08/2022 12:16 CEST Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
> ha scritto:
>
> I caution against those approaches that would set such a high bar that they
> would require researchers to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars on
> application fees alone plus who knows how much e
Hi Joe, Dave, Christian, John, George, and others,
Thank you for taking the volume down a notch. It is much appreciated.
The ISE is looking for a way to have the work of the GNS published such
that I am comfortable that if it achieves wild success (RFC 5218), its
use is reasonably safe. I us
On Aug 8, 2022, at 08:08, Christian Huitema wrote:
> The name space is "almost" unitary. People deploy things like domain suffix
> search lists so that users can type "mailserver" and arrive at
> "mailserver.corp.example.com" -- or something else, depending where they
> started for.
There are
On 8/7/2022 9:17 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
Not trying to say you're wrong,
I just observe that if there is an omnibar, and people type names into
it, then there is a latent problem of ordering lookup, and deciding,
in names and more than one namespace. Pretty much all the hard stuff
stems f
Not trying to say you're wrong,
I just observe that if there is an omnibar, and people type names into
it, then there is a latent problem of ordering lookup, and deciding,
in names and more than one namespace. Pretty much all the hard stuff
stems from there IMO.
Names are hard. I think belief in
It appears that Christian Huitema said:
>AFAIK, the consequences would be minimal, as there is approximately zero
>existing use of ".test" -- in constrast to say, ".local" or ".internal",
>which both have very significant usage. Plus, whatever user they are
>already warned.
If someone wants t
On 8/7/2022 5:39 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
In a similar spirit to avoiding "be damned" in a doc, I think
referring to choice 3 as "squatting" is probably both
truthful/accurate, and regrettable. We probably shouldn't formally
document (ab)use of a space this way without more considered langu
In a similar spirit to avoiding "be damned" in a doc, I think
referring to choice 3 as "squatting" is probably both
truthful/accurate, and regrettable. We probably shouldn't formally
document (ab)use of a space this way without more considered language
and text around what it implies.
I thought yo
On 8/4/2022 1:52 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote:
Dave,
To answer the question, “What is the ISE process?”:
On 04.08.22 21:28, David Conrad wrote:
Martin,
[...]
I see 4 options:
1) Wait for ICANN to fix their processes
2) Wait for the IETF to figure out whether/how t
Dave,
To answer the question, “What is the ISE process?”:
On 04.08.22 21:28, David Conrad wrote:
Martin,
[...]
I see 4 options:
1) Wait for ICANN to fix their processes
2) Wait for the IETF to figure out whether/how to reopen the “Special Use
Domains” registry
3) Try to bypass (1) and/or (
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 21:28, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
Hi David,
> On Aug 4, 2022, at 12:01 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>> But the resolution protocol is technology-neutral. I invite you to re-read
>> the draft. We are not proposing a namespace.
>
> Right. If I understand co
Martin,
On Aug 4, 2022, at 12:01 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin
wrote:
> But the resolution protocol is technology-neutral. I invite you to re-read
> the draft. We are not proposing a namespace.
Right. If I understand correctly, you are proposing to use the existing domain
name namespace, and that’
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 18:01, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 4. Aug 2022, at 16:17, Vittorio Bertola
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Il 04/08/2022 14:37 CEST Schanzenbach, Martin ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>> You are trying to kill it using, what, political arguments?
>>
>> Yes. There is nothing
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 16:17, Vittorio Bertola
> wrote:
>
>> Il 04/08/2022 14:37 CEST Schanzenbach, Martin ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> You are trying to kill it using, what, political arguments?
>
> Yes. There is nothing technical in this discussion. We are not arguing over
> wire formats or algor
> Il 04/08/2022 14:37 CEST Schanzenbach, Martin ha
> scritto:
>
> You are trying to kill it using, what, political arguments?
Yes. There is nothing technical in this discussion. We are not arguing over
wire formats or algorithms, we are arguing about names and ways to gain control
over them,
25 matches
Mail list logo
