> On 24. Aug 2022, at 22:13, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
>> On 24. Aug 2022, at 20:22, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We (I) learned that this is a good approach after conversations with our
>>>
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 20:22, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>> We (I) learned that this is a good approach after conversations with our
>> reviewers in particular since it is very difficult to distinguish what
>> "case" actually is with
On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> We (I) learned that this is a good approach after conversations with our
> reviewers in particular since it is very difficult to distinguish what "case"
> actually is with respect to i18n.
Fortunately (at least as far as understanding
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 18:46, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>>
>> GNS, as in the protocol, does *not* consider "Example.gns.Alt" and
>> "Example.gns.alt" to be the same name.
>
> FYI, on many mobile phones, words at the start are
On Aug 24, 2022, at 11:27, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>
> GNS, as in the protocol, does *not* consider "Example.gns.Alt" and
> "Example.gns.alt" to be the same name.
FYI, on many mobile phones, words at the start are automatically capitalized,
so you are going to experience many user
> On 08/24/2022 11:27 AM EDT Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
> If the application decides that the user expectation is that "example.ch.Alt"
> IS "example.ch.alt", then the application is invited to make the user happy
> accordingly.
I see. I understand now. You don't need the IETF for
Hi,
> On 24. Aug 2022, at 16:28, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 8/24/22 10:13, Joe Abley wrote:
>> So the question is not whether to allow mixed capitalisation; the question
>> is why we would intentionally change a fundamental expectation of domain
>> names to accommodate names
Hi Joe,
On 8/24/22 10:13, Joe Abley wrote:
So the question is not whether to allow mixed capitalisation; the question is
why we would intentionally change a fundamental expectation of domain names to
accommodate names and resolution protocols that we largely don't have any
requirements for
On 24.08.22 16:13, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Peter,
So the question is not whether to allow mixed capitalisation; the question is
why we would intentionally change a fundamental expectation of domain names to
accommodate names and resolution protocols that we largely don't have any
requirements
On Aug 24, 2022, at 10:13, Joe Abley wrote:
> That's a large installed base of assumptions; to a close approximately it's
> all users of the internet and all software that makes use of it.
Approximation, not approximately. My phone and I have different ideas about
language, soapy about
Hi Peter,
On Aug 24, 2022, at 09:40, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> On 8/23/22 18:37, Joe Abley wrote:
>> So your suggestion is that this document should specify behaviour for QNAMEs
>> whose final label is exactly "alt" but that names with different
>> capitalisation should be leaked to the DNS?
>
On 8/23/22 18:37, Joe Abley wrote:
On Aug 23, 2022, at 18:07, Peter Thomassen wrote:
Unaware applications: yes, perhaps mixed; but as they're unaware, they'll
ignore the carve-out regardless of case
Aware applications: ... will produce only what's compliant. And the question
here is
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022, 12:23 pm John Levine, wrote:
>
> I don't see any reason why that is our problem.
>
> On my system at least, the only DNS queries that go through nsswitch
> are ones starting from calls like getaddrinfo() or gethostbyname(). If
> you're interested in MX or SRV or HTTPS or
It appears that George Michaelson said:
>>
>> > 4) Say in English prose that since the DNS ignores ASCII case
>> > distinctions, all versions of .alt are excluded from the DNS, but it's
>> > up to each non-DNS thing to choose which if any of the versions it
>> > uses and it how it interprets
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:45 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2022, at 5:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >
> > It appears that Paul Hoffman said:
>
> > 4) Say in English prose that since the DNS ignores ASCII case
> > distinctions, all versions of .alt are excluded from the DNS, but it's
> >
On Aug 23, 2022, at 5:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Paul Hoffman said:
This document uses ".alt" for the pseudo-TLD in the presentation
format for the DNS, corresponding to a 0x03616c7400 suffix in DNS
wire format. The presentation and on-the-wire
It appears that Paul Hoffman said:
>>> This document uses ".alt" for the pseudo-TLD in the presentation
>>> format for the DNS, corresponding to a 0x03616c7400 suffix in DNS
>>> wire format. The presentation and on-the-wire formats for non-DNS
>>> protocols might be different.
On Aug 23, 2022, at 18:07, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> Unaware applications: yes, perhaps mixed; but as they're unaware, they'll
> ignore the carve-out regardless of case
>
> Aware applications: ... will produce only what's compliant. And the question
> here is what we want to define as
On 8/23/22 17:43, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 23, 2022, at 2:00 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
I may have missed something (I have been trying very hard) but it seems a
little weird for the wire format for a definitively non-existent domain name to
be specified at all, to be honest; I'm not sure
On Aug 23, 2022, at 2:00 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2022, at 16:03, Schanzenbach, Martin
> wrote:
>
>> "
>>
>> This document uses ".alt" for the pseudo-TLD in the presentation
>> format for the DNS, corresponding to a 0x03616c7400 suffix in DNS
>> wire format. The
20 matches
Mail list logo
