At 01:46 PM 7/24/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>At 09:37 AM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Richard,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner (my mailbox is overloaded), but...
>
>Each has a charter for dispensation of the name and must
>maintain a DNS datab
At 10:51 PM 24/07/1999 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> We now have three clear ad hominem attacks by Dave Crocker.
>> The question is, do we continue to tolerate them?
>
>If you don't intend to tolerate Dave Crocker any more, I assume you'll
>extend the same courtesy to Michael Sondow and "Jeff
Dave Crocker wrote:
>The heuristic works very badly on an international scale, when the ccTLDs
>are included, and very badly for the many companies that do not have an
>obvious domain name. (Since you live in California, you might already know
>the domain name for Southwest Airlines, but I se
I'm sure this has been said before in messages I deleted earlier, but
it's really simple:
If any listmember finds another member's posting unpleasant, a waste
of bytes, boring, etc. then in the future just hit the delete key
without reading their posts.
If they post too often or your delete key i
I filtered him about 2 weeks ago.
quality of life is much enhanced since then
>We now have three clear ad hominem attacks by Dave Crocker.
>The question is, do we continue to tolerate them?
The COOK Report on Internet
Only one bounced into my mailbox. I forward it.
Dave, could you either please subscribe to IFWP if
you expect to post it please?
At 01:17 PM 7/24/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>We now have three clear ad hominem attacks by Dave Crocker.
>The question is, do we continue to tolerate them?
>
At 12:50 PM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So what makes more sense. One monolithic address registry
>> which is a monopoly and a single point of failure,
>> or 2048 registries, any one of which can give you an address
>> you can use?
>
>Why do you a
>I suspect that I wasn't clear in what I wrote and that I didn't really do
>a good job of expressing what I wanted to say...
>
>There is starting to be a move to do quasi-directory services that use DNS
>protocols (and unwitting DNS clients.)
>
>There are starting to be intermediary devices that i
Filter out his infantile tantrums, or read them for entertainment.
Domingo Pablo Baron [Dominic Paul Baron]
Asociacion del Ciberespacio [Cyberspace Association]
http://www.idno.org
On Sunday, July 25, 1999 8:18 AM, Roeland M.J. Meyer
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> We now have three clear a
OTECTED]
> Cc: A.M. Rutkowski; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
>
>
> At 01:17 PM 7/24/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >We now have three clear ad hominem attacks by Dave Crocker.
> >
> We now have three clear ad hominem attacks by Dave Crocker.
> The question is, do we continue to tolerate them?
If you don't intend to tolerate Dave Crocker any more, I assume you'll
extend the same courtesy to Michael Sondow and "Jeff Williams"?
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTEC
We now have three clear ad hominem attacks by Dave Crocker.
The question is, do we continue to tolerate them?
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what makes more sense. One monolithic address registry
> which is a monopoly and a single point of failure,
> or 2048 registries, any one of which can give you an address
> you can use?
Why do you assume that just because I don't advocate TLD a
> >those situations, which are becoming, increasingly common, DNS is being
> >used as sort of a yellow pages service lookup rather than a white pages
> >address lookup.
>
> As has been discussed many times in the past, the yellow pages "search" use
> of the DNS is an artifact of the current con
At 09:37 AM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> With V6, you have to get addressed from one of the 3 RIR's, in V8
>> you can get addresses from any of the 2048 TLD authorities. V8 rides
>> over a core V4 (or V6) transport and grows the net at the edges.
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With V6, you have to get addressed from one of the 3 RIR's, in V8
> you can get addresses from any of the 2048 TLD authorities. V8 rides
> over a core V4 (or V6) transport and grows the net at the edges.
In my opinion, IP addresses should be inde
At 03:32 PM 7/23/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>While it may have been obvious to other people sooner, it has only fairly
>recently become clear to me that "a common root under public trust" is
>also a choke point, control of which permits control of the entire
>Internet. The DNS wars of the last few yea
>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:53:01 -0700
>To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
>
>At 04:30 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>IPv6 uses an address of
Richard and all,
Yep. And these are huge advantages over V6
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> At 05:17 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >> For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6 thing?
> >> (Did I get tha
Mark and all,
Well Mark, but of course they will, at least. In fact I would not
be surprised that ICANN will be RENTING each block allocation
on a per month basis. Gotta pay ole Joe and Mike, ya know! >;)
Besides, ole Joe Sims needs some source for funding that
"Virus laden web page" bus
At 05:17 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6
thing?
>> (Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is
>> it? And
>> its capacity is 2 to the wha
>In other words, even with all those new addresses, it is still going to be
>very important in the IPv6 world to allocate those addresses in a way that
>conforms to the topology of the network in order to avoid having massive
>routing tables and long delays to propogate routing information.
That'
At 05:17 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6 thing?
>> (Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is
>> it? And
>> its capacity is 2 to the wha
On 23 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6 thing?
>> (Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is
>> it? And
>> its ca
> 128 bits vs 32 bits for IPv4. That's
>
> 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
> vs
> 4294967296
>
> addresses, if I did the arithmetic correctly...
>
> Or 56713727820156410577229101238 addresses for every human on earth,
> give or take a few.
And not that it needs to be mentioned (we
On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
> For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6 thing?
> (Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is
> it? And
> its capacity is 2 to the what?
128 bits vs 32 bits for IPv4. That's
At 10:35 AM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Before I respond more fully to Roberto, I wanted to mention that DNS is
>used for many things beyond simply looking up IP addresses.
>
>For example, in Internet telephony (H.323), one of the ways of expressing
>the callee is using what looks like an e-mail
Jim and all,
Well said Jim. And for the most part you are correct. It is just that
poor old Roberto just can't grasp these concepts very well. He needs
guidance allot of it. Hence like many of his type will gravitate towards
any group or person that will tell him what do do and when to do i
At 10:32 PM 7/23/99 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>
>While it may have been obvious to other people sooner, it has only fairly
>recently become clear to me that "a common root under public trust" is
>also a choke point, control of which permits control of the entire
>Internet. The DNS wars of the last
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have nothing in principle against multiple roots, I just fail to
> understand how this could be a better system than a common root under public
> trust.
While it may have been obvious to other people sooner, it has only fairly
recently become clea
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP
At 05:26 PM 7/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Karl,
>
>Very good document, indeed.
>
>Let me state my POV on subject #2 (I have objections also on #1, but as this
>has been discussed several times, all readers know where our positions
>differ, and there's no need to bore them with another thread).
>
>I h
karl and all,
You are of course very correct. But this is far beyond Roberto's
limited knowledge of DNS, and seemingly beyond the whole
ICANN (Initial?) Interim Boards as well, save Jun Mari. Roberto
has problems even taking the proper responsibility of unsubscribing
from a mailing list prope
Before I respond more fully to Roberto, I wanted to mention that DNS is
used for many things beyond simply looking up IP addresses.
For example, in Internet telephony (H.323), one of the ways of expressing
the callee is using what looks like an e-mail address. The part of the
callee name after
Gordon and all,
Roberto is either cluless or has a serious language barrier. I have never
been able to figure out which it is.
Gordon Cook wrote:
> Roberto can't grasp why we don't want
> > a common root under public
> trust.
>
> he can't seem to understand that ICANN has no trust and will h
Roberto can't grasp why we don't want
> a common root under public
trust.
he can't seem to understand that ICANN has no trust and will have no
trust from those of us who have observed its record.
>Karl,
>
>Very good document, indeed.
>
>Let me state my POV on subject #2 (I have objecti
If analogies are going to be made to the telephony industry,
directories are not the right comparison. People should
take a look at the toll-free segment. There are the
equivalents of TLDs (800, 888, and other area codes). And
(although I haven't looked recently, I think) there is a single
Karl,
Very good document, indeed.
Let me state my POV on subject #2 (I have objections also on #1, but as this
has been discussed several times, all readers know where our positions
differ, and there's no need to bore them with another thread).
I have nothing in principle against multiple roots
Gene and all,
I wouldn't get to concerned here Gene. I brought up many of Karls points
at the RNC gathering I did last week, and several that karl did not mention
as well... Almost all of the Republican members of the House Commerce
Commission were present, as well as several on the Senate si
At 08:56 PM 7/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Here's what I would have said were I going to be there tomorrow
>
> http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/
>
Karl,
This is good stuff. Many of the points you make will likely go unnoticed
and unaddressed tomorrow... too bad. Let's just hope someon
>This was the IFWP - The International Federation for the White Paper.
Thats "Forum" not "Federation".
Nice missive, Karl. Very nice.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
Bannock
At 08:56 PM 7/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Here's what I would have said were I going to be there tomorrow
>
> http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/
>
> --karl--
>
And I would applaud. That is a good piece of work, and what it says
brings to my mind what a terrible loss and de
Here's what I would have said were I going to be there tomorrow
http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/
--karl--
43 matches
Mail list logo
