On 2July2015Thursday, at 18:21, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> manning wrote:
>> There in lies the problem. These systems have no way to disambiguate a
>> local v. global scope.
>> It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do
>> NOT have global scope, i.e. No conn
manning wrote:
> There in lies the problem. These systems have no way to disambiguate a
> local v. global scope.
> It seems like the obvious solution is to ensure that these nodes do
> NOT have global scope, i.e. No connection to the Internets
> and no way to attempt DNS
manning
bmann...@karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 2July2015Thursday, at 16:44, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> Have a look at the later HTTP/1.1 RFCs (7230) and the URI generic syntax
> RFC (3986). RFC 7230 defines http URIs, but it relies on the URI
> generic sy
manning wrote:
> Hum… “domain-looking-string” … Per RFC 1945, we read:
> "3.2.2 http URL
>
>
>The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP
>protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and
>semantics for http URLs.
>
>http_URL = "ht
the ^G registration was done prior to RFC 1123 being written.
I think, this whole discussion (particularly Ed Lewis’s POV about wire formats
v. readings from RFC 1034 suggest
reopening the can’o’worms that was/is the IDN debate and 8bit clean, native
Unicode, etc.
Regarding Andrew S. reco
Edward Lewis wrote:
> To me a domain name is: a sequence of bits that, when rendered in hex
> notation, can look like this:
>
> 0x03 0x61 0x62 0x63 0x07 0x65 0x78 0x61 0x6d 0x70 0x6c 0x65 0x00
>
> That is what is sent over the wire, through ports and is deposited in
> memory of name servers. Not
agreed. but a “reserved string” registry isn’t the way to do that… at least
in a scaleable fashion.
manning
bmann...@karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 2July2015Thursday, at 10:34, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> manning wrote:
>> ... STRONGLY suggests that “domain
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:34:42AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> what the internet should be doing is defining escape mechanisms for
> non-internet systems, rather than saying "we are the only thing you can
> use".
The Internet _has_ done that. Unfortunately (and I do think it's
unfortunate), the In
In message , Edward Lewis writes:
> On 7/2/15, 13:34, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie" on behalf of p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
>
> >manning wrote:
> >> ... STRONGLY suggests that =E2=80=9Cdomain-looking-string=E2=80=9D is , in
> fact, a
> >> host that is identified using the Internet DNS.
> >
> >i
On 7/2/15, 13:34, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie" wrote:
>
>
>manning wrote:
>> ... STRONGLY suggests that “domain-looking-string” is , in fact, a
>> host that is identified using the Internet DNS.
>
>i agree with this interpretation, which means, it's the spec itself
>that's wrong, not hugo's in
On 7/2/15, 12:04, "DNSOP on behalf of Hugo Maxwell Connery"
wrote:
>
>I believe that you are making a category error here. The key
>point is that the softwares that are using the domain name (dot
>separated network identifier) labeling system do not wish to
>use the DNS architecture for name to a
manning wrote:
> ... STRONGLY suggests that “domain-looking-string” is , in fact, a
> host that is identified using the Internet DNS.
i agree with this interpretation, which means, it's the spec itself
that's wrong, not hugo's interpretation of it. the internet people
didn't love .UUCP addresses
> From: DNSOP [dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of manning
> [bmann...@karoshi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 18:40
> To: Hugo Maxwell Connery
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request
>
> If that is the case, that these fol
ave privacy.' P Zimmerman.
From: DNSOP [dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of manning [bmann...@karoshi.com]
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 18:40
To: Hugo Maxwell Connery
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request
If that is the case, that these folks don’t wa
y, Hugo Connery
>
> NB: I am not a member of the community for any of these networks, and
> I certainly dont speak on their behalf. I do use Tor regularly.
> ____
> From: Edward Lewis [edward.le...@icann.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 14:51
> To
__
From: Edward Lewis [edward.le...@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 14:51
To: Hugo Maxwell Connery; Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] back to: Some distinctions and a request
On 7/2/15, 6:02, "DNSOP on behalf of Hugo Maxwell Connery"
wr
On 7/2/15, 6:02, "DNSOP on behalf of Hugo Maxwell Connery"
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think that Andrew's effort to distinguish between a domain name and
>a DNS name is useful. It gives us some clear terminology to use to
>discuss domain names that wish to use a non-DNS name resolution
>method.
Until thi
Hi,
I think that Andrew's effort to distinguish between a domain name and
a DNS name is useful. It gives us some clear terminology to use to
discuss domain names that wish to use a non-DNS name resolution
method.
RFC6761 introduces a mechanism for the handling of these types of cases.
In the r
18 matches
Mail list logo
