Yes, and I'd be interested to find out where in my email you read the word
Standard.
I didn't but if this is going to be widely used and the rest of the ISP
community gets sucked into supporting it, it might be useful to consider
the process.
Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae - Alive and
At 17:00 07/01/2003 +, Verd, Brad wrote:
This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
domain names (IDNs).
Hi,
This is to inform you that Characterisation GmbH (www.characterisation.de)
has
At 17:40 07/01/2003 +, Steve Dyer wrote:
This is to inform you that Characterisation GmbH (www.characterisation.de)
has patents pending Ref PCT/DE02/00632 filed 28th February 2001.
CentralNic have actually been working with this system for around 12 months
now, and it's pretty cool. It
CentralNic have actually been working with this system for around 12 months
now, and it's pretty cool. It works with a lot more browsers than the VGRS
one, and requires no client or server-side plugins or patches :)
It's really rather good at providing a seamless end-to-end IDN solution
At 18:07 07/01/2003 +, Neil J. McRae wrote:
CentralNic have actually been working with this system for around 12
months
Have you looked at RFC 2026?
Yes, and I'd be interested to find out where in my email you read the word
Standard.
BR
j
x
--
Joel Rowbottom,
At 11:04 04/01/2003 +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
This (ie. IDN) has been discussed (and finally decided) in the IETF IDN wg
for AGES now. If you are so concerned, why did you not engage yourself
there? It is no secret what has been decided there.
I agree, Måns.
For the first time in a very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, January 03, 2003 18:31:18 + E.B. Dreger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
support Unicode for a long time. Any reason to add yet another
encoding?
(Sorry, moderator, I
In a message written on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:49:06PM -0500, Verd, Brad wrote:
response. The web servers refuse connections on all other UDP and TCP
ports, so other network services are minimally affected.
In a message written on Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:04:08AM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
domain names (IDNs).
VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) has been a longtime advocate
of IDNs. Our IDN Test Bed has been active for over two years
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
domain names (IDNs).
VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) has been a longtime advocate
of IDNs. Our IDN Test Bed has
BV Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:49:06 -0500
BV From: Verd, Brad
[ At the risk of going OT... ]
BV Before IDNA, some application developers had developed
BV proprietary mechanisms designed to support IDNs. The Internet
UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
support Unicode
At 18:31 + 1/3/03, E.B. Dreger wrote:
UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
support Unicode for a long time. Any reason to add yet another
encoding?
Sounds like a question to ask of the IETF.
How about encouraging widespread adoption of EXISTING standards
EL Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:44:53 -0500
EL From: Edward Lewis
EL The DNS protocol is not 8-bit safe, much less any
EL implementations of it. This is because ASCII upper case
EL characters are down cased in comparisons. I.e., the
My point is there's no need to force chars = 0x7f if DNS
From: E.B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BV Before IDNA, some application developers had developed
BV proprietary mechanisms designed to support IDNs. The Internet
UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
support Unicode for a long time. Any reason to add yet another
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:15:43PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Yes, comparisons are case-insensitive. So what? strcasecmp()
works on ASCII strings. Now it must work on new encoding x.
Why not let new encoding x be UTF-8, something programmers
should support already? Maybe MS-style Unicode
This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
domain names (IDNs).
Put your support people on overtime warnings!
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], E.B.
Dreger writes:
EL Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:44:53 -0500
EL From: Edward Lewis
EL The DNS protocol is not 8-bit safe, much less any
EL implementations of it. This is because ASCII upper case
EL characters are down cased in comparisons. I.e., the
My point is
In a message written on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 08:22:11PM +0100, Kandra Nygårds wrote:
IDN(A) is an effort to encode unicode into 7-bit DNS-labels, without
breaking backward compatibility (too hard). While there originally were a
few voices arguing for UTF-8 over the wire, they were few and the
SMB Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:41:45 -0500
SMB From: Steven M. Bellovin
SMB I'm sorry, but this is incorrect in many different dimensions. The
SMB subject was discussed exhaustively in the IETF's IDN working group; I
SMB refer you to its archive for detailed discussions. Among many other
SMB
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Verd, Brad wrote:
To improve this user experience and to encourage the adoption of an
application that supports IDNA, VGRS is announcing a measure
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, just me wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
It is quite disturbing, you would think that the folks responsible
for two of the biggest TLDs on the net would appreciate that not
At 12:26 -0800 1/3/03, just me wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
It's scary but I'm not sure it's abhorrent.
The DNS is hit by a lot of bad traffic. E.g., a presentation at the
previous nanog
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, just me wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
And you find this unusual for Verisign/Network Solutions?
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary?
Sounds like a fine interweb kludge
It'll just be annoying until other applications aquire similar
bodgery as the users will not understand why they can't use it
for mail and all
brandon
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:26:05PM -0800, just me wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
I find Microsoft blatantly sending out UTF-8 and 'another local encoding' to
nameservers interesting too.
The real
At 04:24 PM 1/3/2003, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary?
Sounds like a fine interweb kludge
It'll just be annoying until other applications aquire similar
bodgery as the users will not understand why they can't
At 17:15 -0500 1/3/03, Daniel Senie wrote:
It's so nice Verisign is pushing a solution for COM/NET. I have to wonder if
we'll have a different solution in .ORG, another in .BIZ, etc. Folks, this is
why we cooperate with competitors and produce standards.
Well, the way I look at this is: I hope
27 matches
Mail list logo
