Only for a heartbeat. ENUM. When your wireless number folds into the DNS
and
you can't verify your ID without it, you might want to retract this
statement.
Can you explain to me how that works?
Something along the lines of taking your phone number, stripping non-numeric
characters, reversing,
Can you explain to me how that works?
Something along the lines of taking your phone number, stripping non-numeric
characters, reversing, adding dots and attaching to a TLD, so for example:
+1 (613) 473-1719 becomes 9.1.7.1.3.7.4.3.1.6.1.e164.arpa.
And this does what exactly?
--
Clique
Can you explain to me how that works?
Something along the lines of taking your phone number, stripping
non-numeric
characters, reversing, adding dots and attaching to a TLD, so for example:
+1 (613) 473-1719 becomes 9.1.7.1.3.7.4.3.1.6.1.e164.arpa.
And this does what exactly?
Spell trouble.
At 04:13 AM 3/19/02 -0500, you wrote:
Can you explain to me how that works?
Something along the lines of taking your phone number, stripping
non-numeric
characters, reversing, adding dots and attaching to a TLD, so for example:
+1 (613) 473-1719 becomes 9.1.7.1.3.7.4.3.1.6.1.e164.arpa.
And this
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 20:52 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
There's a $35 piece of sofware called Simple DNS+ that puts bind to shame
for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ There's a 30
day free trial. I tried it and paid for it, it's really quite amazing; it
And this does what exactly?
www.enum.org
Because ENUM puts telephone numbers into the DNS, it allows for a wide range
of applications based solely on a phone number. Probably the most exciting
application is an improvement in Voice over IP, in which telephone calls can
be made over the
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, at 10:43 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
And this does what exactly?
www.enum.org
Because ENUM puts telephone numbers into the DNS, it allows for a wide range
of applications based solely on a phone number. Probably the most exciting
application is an
Yeah;-)... This is the original TPC.INT scheme set up by Marshall
Rose and Carl Malamud to map all phone numbers in the world into the
DNS;-)...
9.1.7.1.3.7.4.3.1.6.1.tcp.int
They used it to set up free FAX transmission via the Internet with
local volunteer servers all
At 12:08 PM +0100 3/19/02, Marc Schneiders wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 20:52 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
There's a $35 piece of sofware called Simple DNS+ that puts
bind to shame
for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/
There's a 30
day free trial.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, at 13:19 [=GMT-0800], Einar Stefferud wrote:
At 12:08 PM +0100 3/19/02, Marc Schneiders wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 20:52 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
There's a $35 piece of sofware called Simple DNS+ that puts
bind to shame
for ease of use anf
And this does what exactly?
www.enum.org
Because ENUM puts telephone numbers into the DNS, it allows for a wide
range
of applications based solely on a phone number. Probably the most exciting
application is an improvement in Voice over IP, in which telephone calls can
be made over the
Seriously, the basic idea is great, but the number idea is stupid. But
let them set this up. If you can use the DNS to contact people more
easily on whatever they have (phone, mail, sip, icq, msn) over
1.2.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.e164.arpa
you can also do the same over
joanna.lane.ego
The special Enum
So fine to see such active, informed, playful discourse on the IFWP list again!
Does my heart good to hear the debate. Open minds discovering options
-ken
And this does what exactly?
www.enum.org
Because ENUM puts telephone numbers into the DNS, it allows for a wide
range
of applications
Of course Marc;-)... Too True!
But, without it, the ITU Telephone Heads would not have left a mark
anywhere in the Internet. Surely you do not expect them to give up
on leaving their mark!
So far as I can tell, they have done very little to improve on what
TPC.INT did 5 years or more ago,
The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for
instance of Windoze.
Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum...
How many bytes is it Richard?
368738 bytes
It got pretty big when we added the Name Space tlds.
--
Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
At 01:03 AM 3/18/02 -0700, you wrote:
Wasn't the original idea a decentralized network that could survive a nuke
attack?
Not exactly, but close enough. But that's why you should primary the root
for yourself, you rely even less on the n-way redundent root servers.
Should decentralization of the
Doesn't name.space have some colliders,the same TLD delegated to more than
one administrator in the inclusive TLD universe?
[Aside: .SHEESH still is a collider because Adam Todd REFUSES to make the
simple redelegation change I have been requesting for 1.5 years. One
excuse after another.]
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 08:04 [=GMT-0800], Ellen Rony wrote:
[Aside: .SHEESH still is a collider because Adam Todd REFUSES to make the
simple redelegation change I have been requesting for 1.5 years. One
excuse after another.]
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this just a matter of a root
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, at 22:00 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
and in fact, if you adopt the recommended practice of running your own
private root server [1] then the ORSC servers could get taken out by that
same thunderbolt and everything would still work for us. root servers
are a
There is no Internet Governance involved with ICANN, except for the
hidden agenda of gaining control of Information Distribution by means
of contracts binding users of DNS names to control by the name
delegators who in fact have no natural reason to be controlling
what people do with their
Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single SNMP message?
Cheers...\Stef
At 10:07 AM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for
instance of Windoze.
Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum...
How many bytes is
Yes, you are correct, and I don't know why any of the root zone operators
would point to his AURSC or IRSC knowing this.
Seems like there should be encouragement to route around anyone who doesn't
handle the responsibily ethically and professionally, but then comes the
question abo9ut who
Internet governance my butt. This is just about domain names. If all
you do on the net is send mail, read usenet news and use IRC you'll
probably never hear of icann; it has no affect on any of those things.
--
Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
A narrow
At 08:04 AM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
Doesn't name.space have some colliders,the same TLD delegated to more than
one administrator in the inclusive TLD universe?
Maybe 2 of them. 2 out of a thousand isn't bad.
[Aside: .SHEESH still is a collider because Adam Todd REFUSES to make the
simple
At 08:14 AM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single SNMP message?
Beats me. It's been years since I've even looked at SNMP.
--
Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
A narrow circle of persons associated by common
No, I don't mean per any protocol.
Is it not typical to receive messages in the size range of 368738
bytes?...\Stef
At 11:40 AM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 08:14 AM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
Isn't 368738 bytes well within the max size limit of a single SNMP message?
Beats
We should interpret Adam Todd's refusal as a request for removal.
Simple action, positive result!...\Stef
At 8:04 AM -0800 3/18/02, Ellen Rony wrote:
Doesn't name.space have some colliders,the same TLD delegated to more than
one administrator in the inclusive TLD universe?
[Aside: .SHEESH
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 11:40 [=GMT-0500], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
[1] http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html or http://support.open-rsc.org
I do this on my home Windows box
Slaving root? How? Windows9*?
There's a $35 piece of sofware called Simple DNS+ that puts bind to shame
for ease of
There's a $35 piece of sofware called Simple DNS+ that puts bind to shame
for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ There's a 30
day free trial. I tried it and paid for it, it's really quite amazing; it does
caching, authoritative nameservice and zone transfers.
Works
Will it run on OSX? Cheers...\Stef
At 8:52 PM -0500 3/18/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
There's a $35 piece of sofware called Simple DNS+ that puts
bind to shame
for ease of use anf user friendlyness. http://www.jhsoft.com/ There's a 30
day free trial. I tried it and paid for it, it's
At 08:09 PM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
Will it run on OSX? Cheers...\Stef
No, it's a windows program. Isn't OSX just BSD with a Mac GUI?
--
Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See Click, v. i.]
A narrow circle of persons associated by common interests or
for the
Sort of.
Its lineage is via NeXT, which includes NeXT STEP and some other
non-unix stuff.
It has a MACH kernel, among other things. So, lots of stuff will
port easily, but not all.
the people I talk to love it, and say It is REAL UNIX which I
believe, but I do not have much info on what
Well if it's real unix then djbdns should work: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns
At 10:30 PM 3/18/02 -0800, you wrote:
Sort of.
Its lineage is via NeXT, which includes NeXT STEP and some other
non-unix stuff.
It has a MACH kernel, among other things. So, lots of stuff will
port easily, but not all.
Internet governance my butt. This is just about domain names. If all
you do on the net is send mail, read usenet news and use IRC you'll
probably never hear of icann; it has no affect on any of those things.
Only for a heartbeat. ENUM. When your wireless number folds into the DNS and
you can't
, March 16, 2002 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Moving Up the Ladder
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm
It is further resolved [02.31] that the Chairman of the Board of ICANN
will
undertake to liaise
At 07:21 PM 3/17/02 -0500, you wrote:
Yeah, right, and they'll call upon UN forces to defend security and
stability of the internet. How long till they criminalize inclusive/
alternate roots?
I hope they do; that would be great.
--
Clique \Clique\, n. [F., fr. OF. cliquer to click. See
. How long till they criminalize inclusive/
alternate roots?
Regards,
Joanna
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Michael Sondow
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder
Richard J
Stefferud
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder
There is no such thing as an alternate inclusive root.
The Inclusive root includes all non colliding TLDs,
so there is nothing alternate about it...Stef
At 7:21 PM
Actually, an alternate root would be one that does not include the A root,
which would seem infinitely preferable to one that does, which would be an
inclusive root, to my way of thinking.
I understand you to mean any root zone not the DoC controlled root
zone but pinning it down to dependancies
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IFWP] Moving Up the Ladder
Actually, an alternate root would be one that does not include the A
root,
which would seem infinitely preferable to one that does, which would be an
inclusive root, to my way of thinking.
I understand you to mean any root zone not the DoC
If a great thunderbolt from heaven descended upon ICANN and took out 13 DoC
controlled root servers, would your zones still work?
Yes, absolutely. That's one of the major motivating factors for what we're
doing, and in fact, if you adopt the recommended practice of running your own
private root
Right on Richard;-)...
The root Zone is minuscule these days relative to the size, for
instance of Windoze.
Or IE or OutLook, etc, ad nauseum...
How many bytes is it Richard?
Cheers...\Stef
At 10:00 PM -0500 3/17/02, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
If a great thunderbolt from heaven descended
Wasn't the original idea a decentralized network that could survive a nuke
attack?
Should decentralization of the root enourage decentralizalization of
governance?
-- ken
If a great thunderbolt from heaven descended upon ICANN and took out 13 DoC
controlled root servers, would your zones
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Moving Up the Ladder
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm
It is further resolved [02.31] that the Chairman of the Board of ICANN will
undertake to liaise with the appropriate activities and persons engaged in UN
ICT work, keeping alert,
44 matches
Mail list logo
