DNS query reliability (was Re: The internet architecture)

Andrew Sullivan wrote: It seems to me true, from experience and from anecdote, that DNS out at endpoints has all manner of failure modes that have little to do with the protocol and a lot to do with decisions that implementers and operators made, either on purpose or by accident. ... This su

Re: Friday experiment

--On Saturday, 06 December, 2008 17:53 -0700 Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for >> agenda submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a >> meeting is published in t

Re: Friday experiment

On Nov 29, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in time, the meeting shouldn't take place. +1 But in practice, every time something is late, an exceptio

Re: The internet architecture

Keith - Up front: Many of your arguments are based on the assumption that the name-oriented stack architecture proposed in [1] is limited to a new API between applications and the stack. If that was so, then the benefits of the new stack architecture would undoubtedly be limited. But the name-

Better non-meeting progress, was Re: [73attendees] Attendance by country

On the 73attendees list we had a discussion about making face-to-face meetings unnecessary through better technology. In my opinion, that will be extremely hard to the point of being impossible, for various reasons. (See the 73attendees discussion for a bunch of them.) However, a more usefu

Re: The internet architecture

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > If it were true, I would wonder why people never use legal URLs like > ... The problem to represent a host with raw addresses is that they can't represent a host with multiple addresses, supporting of which is useful and often required,

Re: sockets vs. fds

* Tony Finch: > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> Melinda Shore wrote: >> > >> > Not to go too far afield, but I think there's consensus among us old >> > Unix folk that the mistake that CSRG made wasn't in the use of >> > addresses but in having "sockets" instead of using file descriptor