> > (By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC 2671 not advancing on the standards
> > track?)
>
> Good question.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
It's on the dnsext charter though a little late.
Jun 2005RFC2671 (EDNS0) to Draft Standard
Most of the issues with RFC2671 are the result on
Karl,
On Nov 28, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge, been
adequately researched, and that is the expansion in the size of the
response packets.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "adequately".
This will by itself m
Emin,
On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:31 AM, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
we'd be happy if IANA just signed the single TLD delegations already.
IANA, of course, doesn't sign TLD delegations. Even the question of
who signs the root is a subject of debate since IANA doesn't actually
operate the distribution
Phillip,
you might want to look at the SIP design, which offers most of the
functionality you describe already. The notion of a common address
(prefixed to generate a URL by the communication scheme, be it sip:
or, more generically, pres: or im:) were part of the design, although
there is
On Nov 28, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
Stephane & Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the
invaluable discussion here and beefing up the system sketch. I
think we now agree that it is possible to have multiple operators
manage names in a single, sha
It is technically possible for the United States and Europe to switch from
driving on the wrong side of the road to the left. That does not mean that
proposing to do so is anything other than idiotic.
What I said was that these proposals amount to distinction without a
difference. The switching
Stephane & Phillip,
I'm thinking of writing a short report that summarizes the invaluable
discussion here and beefing up the system sketch. I think we now agree
that it is possible to have multiple operators manage names in a single,
shared namespace without recourse to a centralized super-registr
Brian Rosen wrote:
If you squint hard enough, everything has already been invented. Telegraph
operators had a form of presence if you squint hard enough.
Presence is a continuously updated 'display' of a set of other people's
status. Finger didn't do that. Yeah, you COULD have used the mechan
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:57:08AM -0800, Hallam-Baker,
> Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 31 lines which said:
>
> > If GoDaddy and TuCows both attempt to register the same name at the
> > same time they may well submit
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:57:08AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
> If GoDaddy and TuCows both attempt to register the same name at the
> same time they may well submit their orders through separate
> machines. Ultimately there is a mech
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:31:04AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 64 lines which said:
> Ok, here is a rough protocol sketch.
Very interesting. One more reason to ask it is transformed into a full
Internet-Draft. Do you think it fits well in Hallam-Baker, Phillip'
At 12:05 -0800 11/28/06, Karl Auerbach wrote:
path MTU and have to be fragmented. (By-the-way, why is EDNS/RFC 2671 not
advancing on the standards track?)
For the same reason almost none of the other DNS RFCs have not advanced.
RFC 3596 being the lone Draft Standard.
RFC 1034/1035 being the
John Levine wrote:
As someone noted a few days ago, ICANN and the current roots have yet
to address the issues related to IDNs. There's only one significant
technical issue, mapping non-unique Unicode strings into unique DNS
names
There is an ancillary issues that have not, to my knowledge, b
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
> Incidentally, it does need to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] and not
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Google, Yahoo and co need to stop
> trying to turn us into serfs by refusing to allow us to own our own
> online identity. Stop trying to make a service sticky by making it
> costly to swi
> Beware academic speculation, it has a tendency to obsess on the
> exact wrong thing.
Indeed. (And I should know, having taken eight years to get my PhD.)
>From a technical point of view, the registry/registrar model works
fine. I have plenty of bad things to say about VRSN, but it is hard
to
If you squint hard enough, everything has already been invented. Telegraph
operators had a form of presence if you squint hard enough.
Presence is a continuously updated 'display' of a set of other people's
status. Finger didn't do that. Yeah, you COULD have used the mechanism to
implement a fo
John C Klensin wrote:
Having to configure multiple IM accounts, ...>
No question about it. I was thinking partially about Jabber,
Right. Which was why I said "proprietary". (Jabber, having been turned into
XMPP, nicely dodges that qualifier...)
with interoperability between implement
--On Tuesday, 28 November, 2006 08:01 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Subjectively and from my perspective, the present systems
>> "feel", and sometimes actually are, much more distributed.
>> But, yes, from the perspective you describe, we have advanced
>> very little in terms
> From: Emin Gun Sirer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Stephane,
>
> > It is not artificial, it is the way it has to work. You cannot have
> > multiple registries for one TLD, period. No more than you can have
> > perpetual motion.
>
> Be careful about making statements about impossibility
>
I think you add clarity, not confusion.
There is only one communication space. We should stop thinking about an 'email
address' and think about a 'user address' instead.
[I know that I have promised to deliver an architectural statement on this, it
is written and I am working to get it released
John C Klensin wrote:
Yes. I wanted to keep the note from becoming even longer, but...
ack. figured that, but found myself compelled that the history lesson was
useful for the record.
If I came in through an arpanet dial-up at some random place
on the net, and telneted to my home syste
Hi;
Forgive me for posting OT, but I figure you guys can help me ;)
I'm trying to set up a VPN. The server's good to go, but I can't establish a
connection with my laptop. The problem is that it hangs upon trying to
establish a tunnel. Here are the specifics:
* VPN client: The Green Bow
* conne
Hi Ed,
> The one weakness I see in the presentation of CoDoNS is one that is
> common amongst academic exercises. While it treats a technical
> problem in a formally defined say, it suffers from the "assume
> frictional surfaces" syndrome. This disease is not fatal, it is more
> like the flu,
just to add to the confusion...
gmail will actually store the transcripts from your gtalk sessions in your
gmail inbox. Blurring the difference again
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
What this thread is lacking is:
There is a difference between being a registry and being a DNS operator.
The role of a registry is to associate a resource with a principle.
Like a domain name with a company. Or range of addresses with a
person. Or a value in a protocol field with a semantic.
> > But I'll do this only if asked.
>
> Consider it done.
>
Ok, here is a rough protocol sketch. For simplicity, I'll gloss over
non-critical details, e.g. timeout handling. Bear with the notation,
we'll end up with something neat at the end:
- assume that R1 and R2 pick random numbers r1 and r
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:28:11PM +0100,
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 11 lines which said:
> what do you mean by "mutually distrusting" in this context?
In distributed systems, "mutually distrusting" means they are not
under the same rule ("not in the same AS" would say a
Emin Gun Sirer wrote:
This is a false statement. A basic course on distributed systems will
cover lots of design alternatives where R1 and R2 are symmetric,
mutually distrusting and there exists no super-registry, yet there is a
way to establish whether R1 or R2 acquired the name first.
Ple
--On Monday, 27 November, 2006 11:07 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>...
>> I would add an observation to Dave's about possibly different
>> sets of needs by reminding everyone that considerable IM
>> functionality (other than presence) isn't new. We had
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:14:54AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> Be careful about making statements about impossibility without an
> associated impossibility proof.
Already sent. Of course, proofs, like software, may have bugs :-) The
IETF
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:45:56 +0100
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's the problem with most "one namespace, several registries"
> proposals. There is still a registry to coordinate the so-called
> "several registries" so you're back to step 1.
>
"Most?" I'd have said "all
Stephane,
> It is not artificial, it is the way it has to work. You cannot have
> multiple registries for one TLD, period. No more than you can have
> perpetual motion.
Be careful about making statements about impossibility without an
associated impossibility proof. History is full of people who
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:32:00AM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
> A basic course on distributed systems will cover lots of design
> alternatives where R1 and R2 are symmetric, mutually distrusting and
> there exists no super-registry,
Feel f
Hi Stephane,
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:41 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> let's assume two registries R1 and R2
> manage the namespace ".example". A customer C1 wants to create
> foobar.example and asks to registry R1. A customer C2 wants to create
> foobar.example and asks to registry R2. Ther
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:39:59PM -0500,
Emin Gun Sirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 99 lines which said:
> the name hierarchy and the server hierarchy are intertwined. This
> leads to a natural monopoly. Suppose you want a .COM name, but also
> want to boycott VeriSign over SiteFind
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:58:11AM +0100,
Patrick Vande Walle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
> Add to that the current architecture does not allow competition at
> the TLD level. There can only be one registry for any given TLD,
> leading to artificial scarcity and
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
"CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the same part of
the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing operators would preserve a
single consistent namespace by issuing names out of a common, shared
pool. In the presence of conflicting
37 matches
Mail list logo
