> This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means
> that there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things
> different than we are.
One of the few ICANN committees that actually works is the SSAC, the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee. It includes a lot of
people
At 5:53 PM -0400 7/1/08, John C Klensin wrote:
Pretend I'm a fine, upstanding, citizen who is in the domain
names business (I guess that would make me a "domaineer" :-))
and whose business model is based on traffic concentration and
redirection.
I think I would really like to own "local", alth
On 2008-07-02 09:07, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
> without providing text. So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
> is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
> if he does not provide text (you didn
--On Tuesday, 01 July, 2008 16:51 -0400 Thomas Narten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just
> say "buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not
> be useable in practice (for some deployed software) would get
> what they deser
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Thomas Narten wrote:
...
Also, for TLDs like .local, one could also to some extent just say
"buyer beware". Anyone wanting a TLD that is known to not be useable
in practice (for some deployed software) would get what they
deserve. :-) The folk wanting TLDs presumably want TLDs
Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
without providing text. So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is,
and how to f
On Jul 1, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
The host SHOULD check the string syntactically for a dotted-decimal
number before looking it up in the Domain Name System.
which seems to reply to David Conrad's question: if all the
implementations are correct, 127.0.0.1 will always be an
>
>The problems with the Discussing AD proposing text are more in the area
>of scalability. I prefer seeing the authors (or shepherds) be active and
>propose ways to resolve an issue. Or at least the initial proposal,
>review and suggestions from both sides may be needed to converge.
This is not t
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A better approach, I think, would be for proposed TLDs to pass
> technical review through some suitable body who could consider each
> case on its merits.
As in https://par.icann.org/files/paris/gTLDUpdateParis-23jun08.pdf,
starting at chart 11?
Also,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:40:35PM +0100,
Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> RFC 1123 section 2.1, especially the last sentence.
Well, the last sentence will no longer be true if all-numeric TLDs are
allocated but, before that, one finds:
> The host SHOUL
Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether
http://microsoft/ or other similar corporate TLDs would work as intended with
deployed legacy browsers.
I suspect (but have not tried) that if you simply type 'Microsoft' into the
address bar of some browsers you might have the key
John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>* Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative
>>* Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized
>
> Ahem:
>
> * Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized
I did an exercise today: I looked at the first
In like mode, it would be nice if there was a series of guides that described
how to go about specifying certain types of document such as we have for MIBs.
For example I would like there to be a document that described how to go about
specifying a cryptographic algorithm for use in IETF protoc
Tony Finch wrote:
Speaking technically, how would you distinguish the top-level domain
"127.0.0.1" from the IP address 127.0.0.1?
A word while passing here: is there a document (RFC, Posix standard,
whatever) which says which is the right result in such a case?
RFC 1123 section 2.1, especial
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 05:49:18AM -0700,
> David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 11 lines which said:
>
> > Speaking technically, how would you distinguish the top-level domain
> > "127.0.0.1" from the IP address 127.0.0.1?
>
> A
>* Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative
>* Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized
Ahem:
* Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized
>* Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative
>language, even in drafts.
Yes,
Looks good, but needs some smitthing.
I think that the sense that I would want is:
* Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative
* Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized
* Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative language,
even
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> How about an IETF "operations" mailing list? There is the tools
> mailing list, but I don't think this kind of operational discussions
> belong there. People interested in the operations of various IETF
> servers could join that mailing list. The list might even be an
18 matches
Mail list logo
