Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:13:57PM +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
For instance, should the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain
names? There is no *technical* reason to ban them.
Wow, I never noticed this Web pag
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:13:57PM +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> For instance, should the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain
> names? There is no *technical* reason to ban them.
Wow, I never noticed this Web page:
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/dot-local
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:13:20PM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> Next, it is a convention, which Donald, Bill, and I observed in 2929,
> that "[t]ext labels can, in fact, include any octet value including zero
> octets but most current uses involve only [US-ASCII]." The nuances I
> r
Eric, et al,
I think it wise to move the discussion to dnsops and to remove from
idna-update, please, as has been suggested earlier. IDNAbis does not
deal with labels in a way that distinguishes TLDs from any other label
position in a domain name.
Vint
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library St
Sure.
Vint Cerf wrote:
Eric, et al,
I think it wise to move the discussion to dnsops and to remove from
idna-update, please, as has been suggested earlier. IDNAbis does not
deal with labels in a way that distinguishes TLDs from any other label
position in a domain name.
Vint
Vint Ce
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Top Level Domain Name Specification
Author(s) : L. Liman
Filename: draft-liman-tld-names-00.txt
Pages : 9
On 11 mar 2009, at 15.08, Matt Larson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009, Patrik Fltstrm wrote:
Will there also be a problem with digits within a label? "Probably
not", but I rather see a generic good definition of "the gray area"
and who is responsible for arguing (I an not saying proving here)
whethe
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009, Patrik Fltstrm wrote:
> Will there also be a problem with digits within a label? "Probably
> not", but I rather see a generic good definition of "the gray area"
> and who is responsible for arguing (I an not saying proving here)
> whether something is "ok to delegate" or not, a
* Patrik Fältström:
> On 7 mar 2009, at 16.25, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> Define "harm".
>
> Here is a link to one of the blog pages of mine that show in a
> filesystem what I think is "harm" if we allow mix of codepoints etc
> that give same result(s) for domain names.
>
> http://stupid.domain.name
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 07:40:46PM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> The problem with writing exact objective rules is that with the 6000
> languages, and enormous number of codepoints, it is extremely hard to
> create say a regular expression that we know is _absolutely_ correct
> regarding
--On söndag, söndag 8 mar 2009 10.59.16 +0100 Jaap Akkerhuis
wrote:
>
> Does not ISO3166 solve that problem for us with regards to allowed
> characters in the TLD label?
>
> No. The alpha-2 used for ccTLD labels (and also the alpha-3) codes
> are restricted to the set A-Z.
...so fo
Does not ISO3166 solve that problem for us with regards to allowed
characters in the TLD label?
No. The alpha-2 used for ccTLD labels (and also the alpha-3) codes
are restricted to the set A-Z.
jaap
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf
--On lördag, lördag 7 mar 2009 16.32.07 -1000 David Conrad
wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> Does not ISO3166 solve that problem for us with regards to allowed
>> characters in the TLD label?
>
> Nope. ISO-3166 merely defines the list IANA uses when an entity on the
>
On Mar 7, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Does not ISO3166 solve that problem for us with regards to allowed
characters in the TLD label?
Nope. ISO-3166 merely defines the list IANA uses when an entity on
the ISO-3166 list requests the delegation of a top-level domain.
ISO-3166 is ir
--On lördag, lördag 7 mar 2009 10.04.30 -1000 David Conrad
wrote:
>> Without knowing the policy for the 2nd level domain, I think it is
>> very hard to say whether a given TLD level is safe or not.
>
> Unfortunately, as you're aware, policy at the second level varies over
> time and there are
On 7 mar 2009, at 21.04, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
The problem with writing exact objective rules is that with the
6000 languages, and enormous number of codepoints, it is extremely
hard to create say a regular expression that we know is
_absol
Patrik,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
The problem with writing exact objective rules is that with the 6000
languages, and enormous number of codepoints, it is extremely hard
to create say a regular expression that we know is _absolutely_
correct regarding separating th
On 7 mar 2009, at 18.14, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
If you want a TLD, you tell me that you will not create any harm.
You do, you get the domain, things go poof, then you did not do
your homework beforehand.
So, just to be clear, you would disa
At 12:07 PM +0100 3/7/09, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>I think regarding digits in TLDs (or rather, non-letters), this is the right
>time when one definitely should have the basic rule to not "add something
>until it breaks", but instead, "only add things we do know will not create any
>harm".
Yes,
Patrik,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
If you want a TLD, you tell me that you will not create any harm.
You do, you get the domain, things go poof, then you did not do your
homework beforehand.
So, just to be clear, you would disallow new top-level domains unless
you
> does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
Go for it!
I claim ^S
jaap
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 7 mar 2009, at 16.25, David Conrad wrote:
Define "harm".
Here is a link to one of the blog pages of mine that show in a
filesystem what I think is "harm" if we allow mix of codepoints etc
that give same result(s) for domain names.
http://stupid.domain.name/node/681
I claim that is "
On 7 mar 2009, at 16.25, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something
if not proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets add
something only if proven that it absolutely not does create an
Patrik,
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something if
not proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets add
something only if proven that it absolutely not does create any
harm", and then have the people th
On 7 mar 2009, at 15.31, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
na... the ^B. is for the visually impared. the DNS can talk!
(and it does meet your "explict directionality" concern.)
If you with ^B talk about U+0002, then it does not fulfil the explicit
directionality requirements as it is B
na... the ^B. is for the visually impared. the DNS can talk!
(and it does meet your "explict directionality" concern.)
actually, I have a fundamental disagreement w/ your logic. I think
that your general rule of "only add if proven to create no harm" or
infering "dangerous" - are on the sl
On 7 mar 2009, at 14.56, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
Go for it!
But I think foo^H^H^Hbar is more interesting as a label. Maybe with a
^G in there as well.
Patrik
--bill
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:07:01PM +0100, Patrik Fdltst
does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
--bill
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:07:01PM +0100, Patrik Fdltstrvm wrote:
> On 6 mar 2009, at 21.54, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> >And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the
> >heart of the problem.
> >
> >I'm sure Patrik is ac
On 6 mar 2009, at 21.54, Edward Lewis wrote:
And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the
heart of the problem.
I'm sure Patrik is active in the IDNABIS WG. So if it is an issue,
he'd have spoken about it.
Yes, active there, following this list.
Still, seriously, al
In message <2009030621.gp12...@shinkuro.com>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:54:58PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> > knowledge of IDNs and the BiDi issue. But when I talked with some folks
> > around the ICANN circus, there was conventional wisdom that there would
>
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:54:58PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> knowledge of IDNs and the BiDi issue. But when I talked with some folks
> around the ICANN circus, there was conventional wisdom that there would
> be no admission of a delegation beginning or ending with a digit to the
> root zon
At 15:13 -0500 3/6/09, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
But depending on whether you think the text I quoted is normative,
1123 may actually forbid those IDNs at the top level. Which would be
a bad thing, I think.
I'm not sure what...a bad thing would be forbidding IDNs or is a bad
thing removing the
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:38:37PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Remember that RFC 1123 was written in a historical epoch much different
> than today. No IDNs. No URLs. No thought of domain names in
> newspapers.
But depending on whether you think the text I quoted is normative,
1123 may actu
At 14:08 -0500 3/6/09, someone wrote:
...I think appealing to the RFC 1123 rules for this case is going to
be tricky.
Remember that RFC 1123 was written in a historical epoch much
different than today. No IDNs. No URLs. No thought of domain names
in newspapers.
The BiDi issue will prett
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 10:56:45AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> They cannot be "interpreted as part of a dotted-quad" if everyone
> follows RFC 1123 section 2.1 "The host SHOULD check the string
> syntactically for a dotted-decimal number before looking it up in the
> Domain Name System".
F
In message <20090306095645.ga19...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:55:39AM -0500,
> Andrew Sullivan wrote
> a message of 22 lines which said:
>
> > There's a strong technical reason to ban any numeric TLD name that
> > could be interpreted as part of a dotted
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:55:39AM -0500,
Andrew Sullivan wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> There's a strong technical reason to ban any numeric TLD name that
> could be interpreted as part of a dotted-quad,
They cannot be "interpreted as part of a dotted-quad" if everyone
follows RF
In message <20090304165539.gn6...@shinkuro.com>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:13:57PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > But this criteria is easier written than applied. For instance, should
> > the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain names? There is no
> > *te
At 15:13 +0100 3/4/09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
But this criteria is easier written than applied. For instance, should
the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain names? There is no
*technical* reason to ban them.
There is one.
I am not the best person to describe the entire problem but I
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:13:57PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> But this criteria is easier written than applied. For instance, should
> the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain names? There is no
> *technical* reason to ban them.
There's a strong technical reason to ban any numeric
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:56:35PM +0100,
Alexander Mayrhofer wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
> I would keep the ABNF to purely *technical* limits as well. Don't let
> the ABNF preclude any policy decisions.
+1
But this criteria is easier written than applied. For instance, should
t
> You may be quite right about that. It's one of the things that I want
> to have a discussion about. I started out with a somewhat conservative
> specification, to see where the discussion will take us.
>
> More voices?
I would keep the ABNF to purely *technical* limits as well. Don't let
the AB
bortzme...@nic.fr:
> [What is the proper email address for discussions? Let's try dnsop.]
[I had hoped to avoid pinpointing it to a specific working group just
yet ... It's neither a typical protocol spec, nor a server operations
issue, so it doesn't fit "naturally" in either of them.]
>> tldlabe
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:00:01PM -0800,
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
> Title : Top Level Domain Name Specification
> Author(s) : L. Liman
> Filename: draft-liman-tld-names-00.txt
[What is the proper email address
44 matches
Mail list logo
