On 12/15/22 01:59, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
On 14.12.22 12:25, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Dec 14, 2022, at 11:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 14.12.22 17:13, Paul Wouters wrote:
"bob.foo.alt" still squarely falls into "my" namespace
It is indeed not “yours”.
... from the perspective of DNS. Whether
On 15/12/2022 01.59, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
If there is an obvious way to do it, the draft could give an example. Whatever
you
mean by "go to a regulated space" should be given with clear example.
You can simply register a DNS name and use that sub-tree in non-DNS
context (as well). That
On 15.12.22 03:51, Paul Wouters wrote:
I don't interpret it as "the person responsible for fixing the
conflict". I think if one opts to use a name under .alt, one has to
engineer in how to deal with conflicts in that namespace. It is a
fundamental feature/bug of it.
That is true with *any* na
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
I am not looking for that. What I said that what this sentence
insinuates is that as a developer I am "wholly responsible" for dealing
with collisions that may occur.
Maybe it is because English is my 2nd language but this rubs me the
wrong way.
On 14.12.22 12:25, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2022, at 11:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >
> >
> > We're off in the woods again. Let's keep these two principles in mind:
> >
> > The DNS resolution mechanisms are not expected to resolve, let alone secure
> > names ending in .ALT.
> > How other
Hi,
On Dec 14, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> If these principles apply, why is the IETF bothering with .alt at all?
My impression has been the primary intent is to ensure .ALT is not allocated
for DNS use and secondarily, to try to curtail future discussions of this topic.
FWIW, if my im
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 16:28, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> We're off in the woods again. Let's keep these two principles in mind:
>
> • The DNS resolution mechanisms are not expected to resolve, let alone
> secure names ending in .ALT.
> • How other resolution mechanisms secure names is t
On Dec 14, 2022, at 11:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>
> We're off in the woods again. Let's keep these two principles in mind:
>
> The DNS resolution mechanisms are not expected to resolve, let alone secure
> names ending in .ALT.
> How other resolution mechanisms secure names is their affair.
I
We're off in the woods again. Let's keep these two principles in mind:
* The DNS resolution mechanisms are not expected to resolve, let alone
secure names ending in .ALT.
* How other resolution mechanisms secure names is their affair.
Therefore, any collisions that occur within .ALT are fo
On Dec 14, 2022, at 05:37, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>
>
> I think my main issue is the word "wholly".
> The developer cannot be "wholly" responsible.
> I can choose a label (e.g. "foo.alt") that is not already taken right
> now.
> But I cannot really do anything if somebody else comes along a
I think the point here is that collisions within the alt name space are
beyond the scope of this document. Perhaps that's what should be said.
Eliot
On 14.12.22 11:08, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
Hi Paul,
the draft lgtm. But, the passage regarding collisions because of
the missing registry no
On 14.12.22 10:19, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:08, Martin Schanzenbach
> wrote:
>
> > "Developers are wholly responsible for dealing with any collisions"
> >
> > I think this is an impossible task and as a developer that is addressed
> > here I have to say that
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:08, Martin Schanzenbach
wrote:
> "Developers are wholly responsible for dealing with any collisions"
>
> I think this is an impossible task and as a developer that is addressed
> here I have to say that we cannot do that unilaterally for our
> implementatio
Hi Paul,
the draft lgtm. But, the passage regarding collisions because of
the missing registry now contains a regression IMO:
"Developers are wholly responsible for dealing with any collisions"
I think this is an impossible task and as a developer that is addressed
here I have to say that we can
Greetings again. As you can see, Warren and I just updated the draft to reflect
the WG discussion at IETF 115 and on the list after that. At IETF 115, the WG
chairs said that they might move this to a second WG Last Call soon.
In the discussion, there was lots of active disagreement about reduci
15 matches
Mail list logo
