Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 05:54:41PM -0700, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 41 lines which said: > I'm suggesting it would be helpful if there were an RFC directing > IANA to establish a registry that contains both labels and rules > (e.g, no all-numeric strings, no strings th

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

David Conrad wrote: > Would there be the downside to this? Hi, that's already planned, I'm lazy, here's a copy: | that will be done in an draft-ietf-idnabis-952bis to nail the | two RFC 1123 errata, see the "A-label" thread(s) | on the IDNAbis list: | |

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

> > I'm suggesting it would be helpful if there were an RFC directing IANA > to establish a registry that contains both labels and rules (e.g, no > all-numeric strings, no strings that start with 0x and contain > hexadecimal values, the string 'xn--', the 2606 strings, etc.) that > specify

Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Randy Presuhn wrote: English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. Emphasis is not semantics. Normative intent is semantic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenbur

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

On Jun 28, 2008, at 9:35 PM, SM wrote: The domain name may be confused with an IP address. That can be avoided by not allocating numbers from zero to 255 as TLDs. You need a bit more than that. Under MacOSX (10.5.3, and I suspect most BSD derivatives at the very least): % ping 127.1024 P

Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Dave, regardless of the original intent of 2119, your belief is inconsistent with longstanding IETF process. you do not get to retroactively change the intent of RFCs that have gained consensus and approval. Keith Dave Crocker wrote: Randy Presuhn wrote: In what universe does that make

Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Hi - > From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "IETF Discussion" > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:31 PM > Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity ... > English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such

Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Randy Presuhn wrote: In what universe does that make sense? ... One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve the problem. These are very distinct senses of the word Wow. I was n

Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Randy Presuhn wrote: In what universe does that make sense? ... One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve the problem. These are very distinct senses of the word Wow. I was n

Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Laksminath, My point was this: if a WG actually missed anything substantial and that comes out during an IETF last call, and the shepherding AD agrees, the document gets sent back to the WG. If the shepherding AD also misses or misjudges, any member of the IESG can send it back to the WG for

Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Hi - > From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "C. M. Heard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "IETF Discussion" > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:57 PM > Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity ... > Are you saying that according to RFC 2119 "SHOULD" means something > different tha

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

On 2008-06-29 16:35, SM wrote: > At 16:18 27-06-2008, David Conrad wrote: >> A TLD of all numbers would be a real pain to deal with. That is, from >> a software parsing perspective, what's the difference between the >> domain name "127.0.0.1" and the IP address "127.0.0.1"? > > The domain name ma

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

>> It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606, >> should be either reserved or blocked. In view of Recommendation 4 in ICANN's new GTLD process document, why do you think this is necessary? You have read the report, haven't you? Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], P

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 02:43:17PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606, > should be either reserved or blocked. I have the feeling that it is a recurring question, although I c