A re-ordering of the previous message happens here:
On 7/9/15, 13:45, DNSOP on behalf of hellekin dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of helle...@gnu.org wrote:
*** Should IETF use social media to expand their reach? (@ietf?
@dnsopwg?)
Oddly enough, ICANN does this, an in fact the ICANN staff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/08/2015 08:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
It further seems to me that an attempt to list names that are
currently in the public root zone or might someday be in the public
root zone has a high risk of being simply backwards if the purpose
: Thoughts on the top level name space
Colleagues,
As we pursue this discussion, I think it would be helpful to focus on
attributes that are visible and relevant from the perspective of DNS operators,
with an eye towards guidance we might provide to them and applications
developers
secretary-hat on
On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery h...@env.dtu.dk wrote:
I posit that continued inaction on the question of Does the .onion case
fit the RFC6761 mechanism actually weakens the reputation of the IETF, and
certainly that of DNSOP.
I acknowledge that it is
On 7/8/15, 7:36, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is of great
importance to ICANN and to participants in its decisions, but of less
obvious relevance to an application developer or DNS operator who sees
only name that gets a
Em 08/07/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Edward Lewis edward.le...@icann.org escreveu:
On 7/8/15, 7:36, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is of great
importance to ICANN and to participants in its decisions, but of less
obvious
On 7/8/15, 13:51, DNSOP on behalf of Rubens Kuhl dnsop-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of rube...@nic.br wrote:
Em 08/07/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Edward Lewis edward.le...@icann.org
escreveu:
On 7/8/15, 7:36, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the distinction between gTLDs
