On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
There's not much we can do to stop the alternate roots. They already
exist, and at least two are currently in operation. However, I think we can
look at what it is that they're offering in terms of i18n and see what we can
do to address those
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:21:47PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
Every public root experiment that I have seen has always
operated as a superset of the ICANN root zone.
not www.orsn.net.
Well, their website looks a lot better than the equivalent one. :-)
But note that their site does *not*
At 10:32 PM -0400 2005-07-04, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
But the whole there's a non-ICANN root: the sky is falling thing is
an argument cooked up to scare the unwashed; us old wallas don't buy
it.
That's because you understand the underlying technology, and you
understand how to deal with
Remember the paraphrase from Voltaire:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it
I have said that before on many occasions. However, in this
case, I do not defend your right to say it. In my opinion, your
doing so undermines the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember the paraphrase from Voltaire:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it
I have said that before on many occasions. However, in this
case, I do not defend your right to say it. In my opinion, your
doing so
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:14:08AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:32:52 EDT, Jay R. Ashworth said:
Well, Steve; that reply is a *little* disingenuous: all of the
alternative root zones and root server clusters that *I'm* aware of
track the ICANN root, except in the
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
for those excellent readers who didn't follow this, here's an excerpt from
http://european.de.orsn.net/faq.php#opmode:
[skip]
what this means is, it can't conflict with ICANN data other than that
if ICANN deletes something it might not show up in ORSN.
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
for those excellent readers who didn't follow this, here's an excerpt
from
http://european.de.orsn.net/faq.php#opmode:
[skip]
what this means is, it can't conflict with ICANN data other than that
if ICANN deletes
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
But Steve appeared to be suggesting that there was no reasonable way to
*avoid* problems -- and that's clearly not the case. If I misinterpreted
Steve, no doubt he'll correct me. But there are two fairly prominent,
I don't think that was what I
I don't think the root zone is sufficiently original to be
legally copyrightable. And we don't have database copyright in the US.
Even if it were copyrightable, it is made avaiable for download hence
there is good reason to assume an implied license.
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Peter Dambier
steve, all.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:01:22AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
problem. Right now, if you're an end user doing your DNS lookups via the
ICANN root, you can get to just about everything. If you're something
that end users want to connect to, using an ICANN-recognized domain
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Todd Underwood wrote:
problem. Right now, if you're an end user doing your DNS lookups via the
ICANN root, you can get to just about everything. If you're something
that end users want to connect to, using an ICANN-recognized domain will
mean almost everybody can
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:01:22AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
But Steve appeared to be suggesting that there was no reasonable way to
*avoid* problems -- and that's clearly not the case. If I misinterpreted
Steve, no doubt he'll correct me. But
What? You mean that marketing spin doesn't convince you of how
much a killer app something is? ;-)
- ferg
-- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup. Killer apps are great. Hard to predict; *really* hard to invent.
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Steve Gibbard
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 1:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
[ SNIP
At 9:43 AM -0400 2005-07-05, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Moreover, most of them are unlikely to be
willing to just live with the problem, if no other suitable technical
solution can be found. Instead, they'll believe the sales pitch of
someone else who says that they
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:38:41PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 9:43 AM -0400 2005-07-05, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Moreover, most of them are unlikely to be
willing to just live with the problem, if no other suitable technical
solution can be found. Instead,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:06:15AM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
To many alt-roots? Or too many alt-TLD's?
Too many of the former is likely to lead to having too many of
the latter. Both are bad.
I don't know that I agree with either of those assertions, absent
collision problems,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:52:09AM +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
Stipulated. But whose problem *is* that?
The users will make it our problem, if we don't get this sorted out
soon.
It seems to me that this is *already* sorted out, and that all of
this discussion has been
At 7:37 PM -0400 2005-07-05, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Hmmm... again, absent TLD collisions, I don't see that writing a
recursive-only server that can coalesce the TLD namespace from multiple
roots ought to be *that* hard... but then I'm not Cricket, neither.
In theory, it should be
At 8:46 PM -0700 2005-07-03, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
ICANN has no right to claim that they are the authority for the namespace.
They are NOT. Also note the word PUBLIC in PUBLIC-ROOT.
Yeh, that's just great - PUBLIC being used in
That said, a big country implementing a new DNS root on a national scale
may not have that problem. The telecom world is already full of systems
that don't cross national borders. In the US case, think of all the cell
phones that have international dialing turned off by default, and
On 04/07/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the marketing people are going to win
this one. There is no marketable benefit to the ICANN
root zone but there are clear advantages for countries
using non-Latin alphabets to switch to a root zone that
allows for their
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
There is a lot of IDN fun to be had with several competing - and
incompatible - technologies, each pushed by rival providers so that
there is practically no incentive to interoperate.
Is draft-klensin-idn-tld-05.txt likely to get any
At 11:26 AM +0100 2005-07-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the marketing people are going to win
this one. There is no marketable benefit to the ICANN
root zone but there are clear advantages for countries
using non-Latin alphabets to switch to a root zone that
allows for their
On 04/07/05, Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That works, up until the point where India decides to use a
different alternative root solution than China does. That works, up
Oh - most indians couldnt care a sh*t about it I expect, except those
who have business or other contacts
Ignore them and they'll either go the hell away or spend some time
fighting against each other and kill each other off.
I'm sure that they will NOT go away and I doubt that
they will kill each other off. This is more of an
evolutionary type struggle and not a physical combat.
They are
At 5:45 PM +0530 2005-07-04, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On the other hand,
.tw and .cn are quite likely to find sharing the same namespace very
tough ..
Okay, so the bigger problem is Taiwan versus China, or maybe
Japan versus China,
At 1:25 PM +0100 2005-07-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are battling it out in the marketplace and one
of the IDN solutions will evolve to the point where
the market considers it clearly superior.
I think that would be the worst possible outcome.
Personally, I think that the
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are battling it out in the marketplace and one of the IDN solutions
will evolve to the point where the market considers it clearly superior.
This may be the IETF-blessed solution and it may not. One only has to
browse through the RFC archives
That works, up until the point where India decides to use a
different alternative root solution than China does.
The only people affected by this are the people who run
the alternative root used by China because, presumably,
it means that they lose some business to a competitor
who has won
Shall we have a separate root for each and every ethnic group in the
world?
We could always create a gTLD in which the second level
uses the ISO 639 codes for languages. That would have the
same effect as giving each ethnic group a root especially
if we require that each linguistic group
On 04/07/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My company makes good money off balkanization of the 'net
and we are definitely *NOT* the only one. AOL has always
operated a network apart from the rest. The Internet is
so big now that some balkanization is inevitable and it
can even
Every public root experiment that I have seen has always
operated as a superset of the ICANN root zone.
not www.orsn.net.
--
Paul Vixie
At 9:39 +0800 7/4/05, Joe Shen wrote:
Hi,
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:21:47PM +,
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 6 lines which said:
Every public root experiment that I have seen has always
operated as a superset of the ICANN root zone.
not www.orsn.net.
You are playing with words. ORSN serves the same data
# You are playing with words. ORSN serves the same data as ICANN. So,
# it is a superset, albeit a strict one.
#
# (The excellent readers of NANOG already saw the bug by themselves, I
# presume.) I wanted to say that ORSN is *not* a strict superset but is
# nevertheless a superset.
for those
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 10:20:13PM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
Do I need to modify our cache server configuration to
enable it?
Only if you wish to do all your other customers a disfavour
by configuring your caching servers to support a
Hi,
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d could
not be resolved either.
, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?
Hi,
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint
Hi,
Only if you wish to do all your other customers a
disfavour
by configuring your caching servers to support a
private
namespace then yes.
The problem is chinese domain name is hosted and could
be registered by people around.
So, we just have to enable
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joe Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; NANGO nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Enable BIND cache server to resolve chinese domain name?
Hi,
Some of our customer complaint they could
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
ICANN has no right to claim that they are the authority for the namespace.
They are NOT. Also note the word PUBLIC in PUBLIC-ROOT.
Yeh, that's just great - PUBLIC being used in propoganda compaign to
create what appears to be private
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d could
Steve, I think that what it boils down to is how many times do you want to split
Metcalfe before it becomes self-defeating. Similar arguments have surfaced
recently due to the emergence of proprietary vertical voip applications such s
Skype. If one is appeased simplmy by communing with a fixed
45 matches
Mail list logo
