> Hi Rich
>
> I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
>
> I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
> do something about -- I would think they would, since it seems to have global
> significance. But I can fix it from this end.
>
> Specifically, the
John C Klensin wrote:
> http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?
My bastard browser from hell eats http://[208.77.188.166]/
It's certainly no STD 66 URL. But it won't surprise me if
the URL-bis, charset-bis, net_2.0-bis, MIME-bis, XHTML-bis,
(etc. ad nauseam) effort styling itself as "HTML5" decrees
that thi
Hi Rich
I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
do something about -- I would think they would, since it seems to have global
significance. But I can fix it from this end.
Specifically, the problem Dave encoun
Mark Andrews wrote:
> The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.
As noted in RFC 2821 as "one dot required" syntax, also
mentioned in RFC 3696. Recently *overruled* by 2821bis.
> No sane TLD operator can expect "http://tld"; or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> to work reliably.
Certainly
> At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
> >Now, for example, I happen to believe that "one-off typing error
> >is guaranteed to yield a false positive", is a more than
> >sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter
> >domains at either the top or second levels and to advise
>
At 15:40 02-07-2008, John C Klensin wrote:
Now, for example, I happen to believe that "one-off typing error
is guaranteed to yield a false positive", is a more than
sufficient _technical_ basis to ban single-alphabetic-letter
domains at either the top or second levels and to advise
lower-level do
Mark Andrews said:
"The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.We added ".ARPA" to
all the single label hostnames as partof that process. The only hold over is
"localhost" andthat is implemeted locally, not in the global DNS. No sane TLD
operator can expect "http://tld"; or "[EM
> Which brings up a question can a TLD be used like a domain name?
>
> not just http://microsoft/ but [EMAIL PROTECTED] will likely to fail to.
>
> james
>
The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.
We added ".ARPA" to all the single label hostnames as part
--On Wednesday, 02 July, 2008 11:52 -0400 Lyman Chapin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With apologies for coming late to this thread -
>
> Any proposal for a new gTLD must satisfy a number of "string
> criteria" that will be specified explicitly in the RFP,
> including the requirements that the U-
> > 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 think there are two orthogonal issues which are being conflated here.
One issue is the ability of existin
--On Wednesday, 02 July, 2008 10:45 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:30 AM -0700 7/2/08, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>> But it is still the case that an application for say .local
>> would need to go through some review process (regardless of
>> price) which would include input from
While I appreciate the kind words and deference to SSAC, and while we
would undoubtedly concur with recommendations to reserve names
like .local, ICANN actually listens to the IETF more directly.
Moreover, there is a specific slot on the Board of ICANN for a
Liaison from the IETF. Thomas
Eric,
Eric Rosen wrote:
- Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol extensions for
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS
Should be P2MP and MP2MP (multipoint-to-multipoint) MPLS; we wouldn't want
to suddenly find out that half of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp is "out of
cha
With apologies for coming late to this thread -
Any proposal for a new gTLD must satisfy a number of "string
criteria" that will be specified explicitly in the RFP, including the
requirements that the U-label must not:
(a) be identical to an existing TLD;
(b) be identical to a Reserved Name
--On Tuesday, 01 July, 2008 09:58 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 trie
At 9:30 AM -0700 7/2/08, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
include input from the IETF ICANN rep. I see little reason why or how
a TLD that would be damaging, confusing, or
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Paul,
>
>But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
>to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
>include input from the IETF ICANN rep.
More likely from the SSAC, which would be even better.
In any e
Paul,
But it is still the case that an application for say .local would need
to go through some review process (regardless of price) which would
include input from the IETF ICANN rep. I see little reason why or how
a TLD that would be damaging, confusing, or otherwise "bad" for the
IETF would/c
(It's always a bummer when ietf-general turns into ICANN-general, but
in this case it seems like a useful discussion because the IETF will
probably be asked policy questions for various proposed TLDs.)
At 10:17 AM -0400 7/2/08, Thomas Narten wrote:
> In a more sane world, no one rational woul
Thanks!
Steve
On Jul 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
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
Which brings up a question can a TLD be used like a domain name?
not just http://microsoft/ but [EMAIL PROTECTED] will likely to fail to.
james
2008/7/2 Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Another like restriction that might be investigated is whether
> http://microsoft/ or other simila
> In a more sane world, no one rational would want to build a
> business or other activity around a TLD named "local". But
> this is demonstrably not a sane world.
Right. I can see the business case for this. :-(
But at least in the first round, the barrier to entry is so high that
I don't see
Speaking as an individual who has also participated in the work of other
standards organizations - In other SDOs, the IEEE 802 for example,
suggesting a fix for a problem detected in the text at ballot time is
not only welcome, but sometimes the recommended if not mandatory
practice.
Dan
> ---
Ted,
The
big problem others have been pointing to is that DISCUSSes are
not being used to say "here is a technical issue, for which any
solution acceptable to the community is fine", but are instead being
used to say "here is a technical issue, and here's what it would
take to satisfy me that it
24 matches
Mail list logo
