UNSUBSCRIBE
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John C Klensin
> Sent: Tuesday 8 July 2008 15:30
> To: Bill Manning
> Cc: Mark Andrews; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Services and top-level DNS names (was: Re:
--On Tuesday, 08 July, 2008 04:28 -0700 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 01:49:24AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Monday, 07 July, 2008 12:08 -0700 Bill Manning
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >John, do you beleive that DNS host semantics/
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 01:49:24AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 07 July, 2008 12:08 -0700 Bill Manning
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > John, do you beleive that DNS host semantics/encoding that
> > form the bulk of the IDN work (stringprep, puny-code, et.al.)
> >
--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 12:08 -0700 Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John, do you beleive that DNS host semantics/encoding that
> form the bulk of the IDN work (stringprep, puny-code, et.al.)
> are applicable -only- in the context of zone file generation
> or are t
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:09PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, 07 July, 2008 10:30 +1000 Mark Andrews
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >...
> > If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will not longer
> > mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] This will mean that any
In an earlier message, John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Part of the problem in that case was that, because JANET used
little-endian names internally, the big-endian foo.ucl.ac.uk (in
DNS order) had to be be mapped into uk.ac.uck.foo (in JANET
order) and vice versa. That mapping was t
--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 10:30 +1000 Mark Andrews
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will not longer
> mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] This will mean that any configuration
> file that has "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will now, suddenly, get
Historical note...
To confirm this:
The introduction of "cs" caused more general problems, unrelated
to name ordering, because there were systems all over the
network in computer science departments with FQDNs like
host.cs.someuniversity.edu. It was common in many of
> > Again you are asserting that no one has ever been effected.
>
> No, I'm saying that you can only cry wolf so many times.
>
> The disaster you are predicting has in fact been in progress for over
> a decade, and the mountains of casualties are nowhere to be found.
Just because t
Again you are asserting that no one has ever been effected.
No, I'm saying that you can only cry wolf so many times.
The disaster you are predicting has in fact been in progress for over
a decade, and the mountains of casualties are nowhere to be found.
Someone claiming to be you said:
> > The problem is that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not globally unique.
> >
> > MIT users will have problems talk to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when "ai" means
> > Anguilla. The is a current security issue.
> >
> > If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will not longer
> >
The problem is that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not globally unique.
MIT users will have problems talk to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when "ai" means
Anguilla. The is a current security issue.
If / when MIT stop using ai.mit.edu, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will not longer
mean [
> >> As someone else pointed out, there are currently about two dozen TLDs with
> >> A or MX records at the apex. Some of them have been like that for many
> >> years, and as best I can tell, the Internet has not thereby collapsed.
> >
> > How many label our hosts with two letter domain names
Historical note...
--On Sunday, 06 July, 2008 09:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Beats me, but since there are several hundred TLDs, it seems
>> to me that the chances are pretty low that everyone in the
>> world has managed to avoid using them as host names.
>
> Back in
On 2008-07-06 01:00, John Levine wrote:
...
>> How many label our hosts with two letter domain names?
>
> Beats me, but since there are several hundred TLDs, it seems to me that
> the chances are pretty low that everyone in the world has managed to
> avoid using them as host names.
Back in t
As someone else pointed out, there are currently about two dozen TLDs with
A or MX records at the apex. Some of them have been like that for many
years, and as best I can tell, the Internet has not thereby collapsed.
How many label our hosts with two letter domain names?
Beats me, but
> >> No. 4 says "Strings must not cause any technical instability." which
> >> sounds exactly within IETF scope covers the gist of the technical
> >> aspects of the ietf list discussion.
>
> > We need "cannot be used in a manner that causes technical
> > instablitity. Known causes incl
No. 4 says "Strings must not cause any technical instability." which
sounds exactly within IETF scope covers the gist of the technical
aspects of the ietf list discussion.
We need "cannot be used in a manner that causes technical
instablitity. Known causes include, but are not
Bernard,
I'm going to try to respond to both your note and Mark's, using
yours as a base because it better reflects my perspective.
Before I go on, I think the three of us are in agreement about
the situation. The question is what can (or should) be done
about it.
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 13:
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
> >> The problem isn't just "inability to use" -- it's that other parties
> >> exist who may claim the usage right, and provide citations to RFCs to
> >> back up their claim.
> >
> > There are several ICANN documents describing the new process that
> > include a set of
> So the "problem" isn't whether some string not listed in 2606
> can be allocated, it is how it is used after it is allocated.
> And _that_ situation has a lot more to do about "buyer beware"
> and understanding of conflicting expectations about use than it
> does about ownership.
>
> john
John Levine wrote:
The problem isn't just "inability to use" -- it's that other parties
exist who may claim the usage right, and provide citations to RFCs to
back up their claim.
There are several ICANN documents describing the new process that
include a set of recommendations to guide the pr
>Is generic "buyer beware" disclaimer really sufficient here?
The cost to get a domain from ICANN under the new rules is estimated
to be about $100,000. Don't you think we can assume that people who
are laying out that kind of money are big boys and girls who will do
adequate due diligence?
>Th
> Not really. ICANN isn't "selling" single-label domains. They
> are selling (and I believe "selling" is probably now the correct
> term) plain, ordinary, TLD delegations. If I get one of those
> and populate the TLD zone only with delegation records, there
> are no problems with what ICANN has
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:49 -0700 Bernard Aboba
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Single label names are local in scope. Attempting to use
>> them in a global context does not work. As the names in
>> "." get more interesting the probability of collisions with
>> existing names goes up. N
>Single label names are local in scope. Attempting to use
>them in a global context does not work. As the names in
> "." get more interesting the probability of collisions with
>existing names goes up. Not many people choose two letter
> labels for the least significant parts of their host name
26 matches
Mail list logo
