Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
(very unimportant contribution, please ignore) any change to this things, must be done in the benefit of future users, making the internet a less weird place, with less exceptions everyone else have already learned a .edu domain is probably a USA university, and some .mil domain is the usa military. ((unfunny joke follow, you can stop reading here)) http://www.usma.edu = usma.edu.mil.us -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On October 22, 2014 at 01:25 i...@itechgeek.com (ITechGeek) wrote: Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us (Much like how other countries already work). And of course they'll also keep .GOV and .MIL because it's too much trouble to do whatever it'd take to actually decomission them so not much would be accomplished. I'm not opposed to the idea, sure, why not, but I'm pessimstic that it'd accomplish much in our lifetimes (depending on your age of course.) I don't see that happening as long as the US gov has a say in the matter. I think .su will be decommissioned long before .gov or .mil are. We agree. Never attribute to megalomania that which can be adequately explained by inertia. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc. No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious. Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. Having country governments use country code.GOV would, assuming .GOV was still managed by the USG, give the US government vastly greater and more direct control of the country's government's websites (not to mention a lovely source of metadata associated with lookups of those websites). Moving .GOV away from USG control is both wildly unlikely and pointless, particularly in a world of 400+ (and counting) TLDs. AFAIK, reasons why the FNC decided to assert GOV and MIL were to be US-only were probably because the USG had already been using it, the operational value of switching would be low while the cost would've been high, some other governments were already using sub-domains within their ccTLDs, and/or it was seen as a good thing to encourage more ccTLD delegations and the use of those ccTLDs. The fact that it gives some political folk ammunition to complain about how the Internet is controlled by the USG is merely a side benefit (to them). Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/21/14 8:08 AM, David Conrad wrote: Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. Freudian slip, David? :) Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/20/14 10:44 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: I’ve had operational issues introduced by *TLD operators and choices they made. When that happens, report them to ICANN's SSAC. They take the Stability part of their name seriously. That said, new TLDs are not going away, so operations needs to take that into account. Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
The fact that you think I'm commenting about you at all is illuminating :) On 10/20/14 9:52 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you comment on mine is uninteresting. -e On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ. The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar. as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a orange-black model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model. Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ... the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government. ... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL would need continued operation during that period anyway). Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc. No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious. Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. I'm thinking there's a not missing here. --Sandy signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/21/2014 01:33 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc. No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious. Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. I'm thinking there's a not missing here. --Sandy Depends on whether we're talking about the nominal or effective role of government... ;) - Peter
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. I'm thinking there's a not missing here. For the numerous people who have suggested similar, both publicly and privately: yes, I did accidentally leave out a teensy little word. I honestly wasn't making a comment about my current (perhaps until my boss reads the post) employer. Really. No, really. That'll teach me to post pre-coffee. Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us (Much like how other countries already work). I don't see that happening as long as the US gov has a say in the matter. I think .su will be decommissioned long before .gov or .mil are. --- -ITG (ITechGeek) i...@itechgeek.com https://itg.nu/ GPG Keys: https://itg.nu/contact/gpg-key Preferred GPG Key: Fingerprint: AB46B7E363DA7E04ABFA57852AA9910A DCB1191A Google Voice: +1-703-493-0128 / Twitter: ITechGeek / Facebook: http://fb.me/Jbwa.Net On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:17 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. I'm thinking there's a not missing here. For the numerous people who have suggested similar, both publicly and privately: yes, I did accidentally leave out a teensy little word. I honestly wasn't making a comment about my current (perhaps until my boss reads the post) employer. Really. No, really. That'll teach me to post pre-coffee. Regards, -drc
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
it was at ietf-9, while jon and i were discussing the {features|flaws}
of iso3166-1, that another contributor approached us and ... spoke to
the unfairness, as argued by that contributor, of the armed forces of
the united kingdom being excluded from the use (as registrants) of the
.mil namespace.
i suggest the question is asked and answered, and as i offered slightly
obliquely earlier, the policy of an agency of government committed to
commercial deregulation (since the second clinton administration), in
particular use of .us, may not be the policy of the government in
general, nor the policy of an agency of government otherwise tasked,
e.g., the department of defense.
On 10/21/14 10:25 PM, ITechGeek wrote:
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be
to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us
could we now put a good night kiss on the forehead of this sleepy child
and let him or her dream of candy and ponies?
-e
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/14 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote: # Gee, someone should alert NANOG management that the list has fallen # through a wormhole into 1996. # On 10/19/14 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote: RFC 1591. Which is circa 1994. The real answer is that although fed.us is used by some agencies, the overall requirement was stripped out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Basically, the DC area incumbent provider of .gov and .com was making so insanely much money per registration, they were able to sbuy off/s persuade enough politicians to keep their monopolistic status. Slowly, slowly, technical progress (Google) and cooperative agreements have eroded that land grab into an oligopoly instead.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 19, 2014 9:53 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote: I'd rather see .gov (and by implication, .edu) usage phased out and replaced by country-specific domain names (e.g. fed.us). imo, the better way to fix an anachronism is not to bend the rules so the offenders are not so offensive, but to bring the offenders into compliance with the current rules. Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc). No, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote: Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has USGOV decided to open a new executive branch for podiatry? Nick
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
The name of the game is you create it, you set your own rules. The United States Gov't was involved w/ the Internet before people thought about it being more than just a US gov't system. As far as the SOA, someone probably copied and pasted another SOA not really knowing what they were doing (or copied pasted, saved, modified, forgot to hit save). --- -ITG (ITechGeek) i...@itechgeek.com https://itg.nu/ GPG Keys: https://itg.nu/contact/gpg-key Preferred GPG Key: Fingerprint: AB46B7E363DA7E04ABFA57852AA9910A DCB1191A Google Voice: +1-703-493-0128 / Twitter: ITechGeek / Facebook: http://fb.me/Jbwa.Net On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote: Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has USGOV decided to open a new executive branch for podiatry? Nick
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org writes: On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote: Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has USGOV decided to open a new executive branch for podiatry? Government's got to keep on its feet. -r
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said: Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc). You say that like it's a bad thing pgpL8QZ_v_hnS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said: Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc). You say that like it's a bad thing Well yeah, there's tons of possible bad here. 1. Some contractor would get millions over a few years for doing this 2. Spending time to maintain old code that no one cares about just to make stuff work is kinda annoying (both for those maintaining the code and #1) 3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real question - why in the hell would we want to do this?
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/20/2014 07:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said: Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc). You say that like it's a bad thing It's a dollar thing -- show me a substantial return on the investment and I'll back it all the way. Notice that nowhere in the litany do the terms LAMP or Linux show up. Adobe and Microsoft would *love* the increased revenue from updates that would have to be applied to all those old servers. And what about those sites that were made using Front Page? Talk about a nightmare. A costly one. A billion here, a billion there, soon you are talking about real money. -- misattributed to the late Senator Everett Dirkson (1896-1969, R-Illinois 1951-69)
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Stephen Satchell l...@satchell.net wrote: On 10/20/2014 07:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said: Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc). You say that like it's a bad thing It's a dollar thing -- show me a substantial return on the investment Indeed Adobe and Microsoft would *love* the increased revenue from updates that would have to be applied to all those old servers. And what about those sites that were made using Front Page? Talk about a nightmare. A costly one. Oh yeah, I totally forgot about old FrontPage. I was thinking Homesite or Dreamweaver, but idk FrontPage from ~10 years back would port very clean into anything modern. So, if anything there needed changing, you'd have to do a manual cleanup of that code.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/14, 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. The USA funded the early internet and so it got to make it's own legacy rules. `murica :D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:45:44 -0400, shawn wilson said: 3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real question - why in the hell would we want to do this? See your point 3. pgpx0NWNKxcgM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. ccTLDs came later. I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
I wish marriages worked like that.. ;) Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device Original message From: Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net Date: 10/20/2014 8:13 AM (GMT-08:00) To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies? On 10/19/14, 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. The USA funded the early internet and so it got to make it's own legacy rules. `murica :D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: […] and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;) johno
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:07 AM, John Orthoefer j...@direwolf.com wrote: On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: […] and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;) johno They do use that, of course. But for example they don’t go to IANA using a .arpa name. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 01:07:13PM -0400, John Orthoefer wrote: People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;) Hadn't you noticed how bad the reverse mapping maintenance is? A -- Andrew Sullivan Dyn, Inc. asulli...@dyn.com v: +1 603 663 0448
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said: GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. No reference as to who, when, or how. That same RFC says: In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called top-level domain names (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. Gotta love that last sentence, yes? --Sandy On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. ccTLDs came later. I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US. And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said: GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. No reference as to who, when, or how. That same RFC says: In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called top-level domain names (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. Gotta love that last sentence, yes? --Sandy On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. ccTLDs came later. I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/14 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? ... I think these questions have been adequately answered. In regards to the question of Ok, so what do we do about it? a simple plan was floated oh, about a decade ago: 1. Create edu.us, gov.us, and mil.us 2. Lock out all new registrations in EDU, GOV, and MIL 3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list. Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*. Obviously no serious consideration was given to that plan 10 years ago, or we wouldn't still be having the conversation today. :) Meanwhile what most perceive as the USG's privileged position in the operation of the root zone is still being reinforced by those TLDs, in spite of the current IANA stewardship transition talks. Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/20/2014 17:09, manning bill wrote: FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US. And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs. It appears to this outsider that Postel and others never understood at all that the sole purpose and destiny of what they were inventing was Marketing, with secondary importance in social networking and politics. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:45:44 -0400, shawn wilson said: 3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real question - why in the hell would we want to do this? See your point 3. I think you're assuming that people go back and fix stuff when they do massive changes that are out of scope - they don't. First they aren't being paid to do so, gov contractors always run over budget and work is never delivered on time so why would they want to make it worse, etc. No, if a massive domain move started, stuff would be fixed enough to make it work with a new domain, and stuff would stay at and possibly worse than the current state of working. I can handle stuff staying at the current state as long as China/Russia doesn't use it to get more of a foothold into our infrastructure, but making this stuff worse might be a really bad thing. Just something to consider - lets say web stuff is ok, email ports, old SOAP (and whatever was/is used on mainframes) stuff doesn't break. I'm betting something accesses relay-4.building-10.not-yet-offline.missile-defense-system.mil someone fails to point to building-10's dns in a dns migration which may be a cooling system that gets changed by some computer and shit hits the fan because we wanted to normalize our gov tld with the rest of the world. No, I think I'll pass on finding out what breaks here. Again - give me a real reason we should do this. And if not, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. PS - MDS is only 10 years old so any part of that still online is likely to have audits (and any installs would be in east-EU and hopefully on classified internet - one hopes - so who knows). It was just an example I pulled. It's more possible that some Blackberry system can't get updated after we stop holding them up and we budget for this and gov email goes down :) Just saying I don't want to find out what gets left behind and breaks here.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: 3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future Because this worked for IPv6? Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list. In this case, it's all about the application-layer stuff - that'd be the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems, Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would (should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov. Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*. Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
RE: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
I remember asking this same question when I first started managing DNS records in the early 1990s. Being young and unencumbered by it's always been done this way thinking I believed that it would only be a few years of transition and .mil/.gov would be pushed to the history books. Now I'm older and crankier and a grandfather. Along with asking the who cares? question the image of Grandpa Simpson also comes to mind: GET OFF MY LAWN! Marc -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Doug Barton Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:26 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies? On 10/19/14 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? ... I think these questions have been adequately answered. In regards to the question of Ok, so what do we do about it? a simple plan was floated oh, about a decade ago: 1. Create edu.us, gov.us, and mil.us 2. Lock out all new registrations in EDU, GOV, and MIL 3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list. Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*. Obviously no serious consideration was given to that plan 10 years ago, or we wouldn't still be having the conversation today. :) Meanwhile what most perceive as the USG's privileged position in the operation of the root zone is still being reinforced by those TLDs, in spite of the current IANA stewardship transition talks. Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
In message CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=f+0bbegow4c5dnjbfzte...@mail.gmail.com
, shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the
future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Well there wasn't a target date set for the change to IPv6 and it
is starting to happen pretty fast now.
These are nameserver by IP type (IPv4 then IPv6). For Alexa top
1000, Alexa AU zones, Alexa bottom 1000 of top 1M, Alexa GOV zones
and TLD/Root zone.
% foreach f ( tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* )
foreach? echo $f
foreach? awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc
foreach? awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc
foreach? end
tld-report/reports/alexa.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z
21782178 33180
513 513 11131
tld-report/reports/au.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
63436343 97529
726 726 16441
tld-report/reports/bottom.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
17881788 26945
416 4169660
tld-report/reports/gov.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
12631263 18821
301 3016765
tld-report/reports/tld.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z
16021602 23035
10651065 20276
%
Or over all the servers
% awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc
11805 11805 178630
% awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc
25542554 53979
%
Now who says IPv6 hasn't taken off?
Setting target dates helps. Having a administator willing to pull
the plug on the set date helps even more. .ARPA was cleared of
hosts because there was a date set and the last entries were removed
even if the operators of the hosts weren't ready. There was never
any intention to remove in-addr.arpa.
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move,
but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is
off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the application-layer stuff - that'd be
the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems,
Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would
(should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you
might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have take
n
longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the
usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows
DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap
parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public,
contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Government departments get re-named all the time. Many departments
have already gone through name changes since coming onto the net.
This would just be another one.
Size really isn't a issue, there are more than enough staff to do this.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Spanish speaking countries .gob.$2lettercodecountry. No problem so far.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=f+0bbegow4c5dnjbfzte...@mail.gmail.com
, shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the
future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Well there wasn't a target date set for the change to IPv6 and it
is starting to happen pretty fast now.
These are nameserver by IP type (IPv4 then IPv6). For Alexa top
1000, Alexa AU zones, Alexa bottom 1000 of top 1M, Alexa GOV zones
and TLD/Root zone.
% foreach f ( tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* )
foreach? echo $f
foreach? awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc
foreach? awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc
foreach? end
tld-report/reports/alexa.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z
21782178 33180
513 513 11131
tld-report/reports/au.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
63436343 97529
726 726 16441
tld-report/reports/bottom.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
17881788 26945
416 4169660
tld-report/reports/gov.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z
12631263 18821
301 3016765
tld-report/reports/tld.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z
16021602 23035
10651065 20276
%
Or over all the servers
% awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc
11805 11805 178630
% awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc
25542554 53979
%
Now who says IPv6 hasn't taken off?
Setting target dates helps. Having a administator willing to pull
the plug on the set date helps even more. .ARPA was cleared of
hosts because there was a date set and the last entries were removed
even if the operators of the hosts weren't ready. There was never
any intention to remove in-addr.arpa.
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move,
but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is
off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the application-layer stuff - that'd be
the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems,
Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would
(should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you
might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have take
n
longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the
usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows
DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap
parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public,
contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Government departments get re-named all the time. Many departments
have already gone through name changes since coming onto the net.
This would just be another one.
Size really isn't a issue, there are more than enough staff to do this.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:09 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote: there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs. Equally, no reason not to. On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said: GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. No reference as to who, when, or how. Passive voice considered harmful. -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not. Jared Mauch On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: Equally, no reason not to.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”. Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: 1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their expectations aren’t met, and 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes. Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but… And in the latter case, like “alternate roots,” that’s not an argument against creating more TLDs… They’ve already been created. It’s an argument against doing so in an uncoordinated manner, which is the source of the breakage. -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”. Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: 1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their expectations aren’t met, and 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes. Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but… I'm not defending any practice. Let's just say everything else goes smooth. How many fed employees are there and what's their average salary? Let's assume it takes them 5 minutes to change their email sig. How much would that cost? There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that someone can't communicate with their elected official. No term limits in the House so you'd start this and 50 years later, you'd be able to complete the project (due to the last congressman being replaced).
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Jared, On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not. Beyond challenges caused by https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en, is there something new TLDs is breaking? (Serious question) Thanks, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:09:11 -0400, shawn wilson said: There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that someone can't communicate with their elected official. You might want to actually surf over to house.gov and start looking at how many totally broken pages are there. Enough so that you can't make it so that someone can't communicate doesn't hold water, 'cause it happens all the time... And if your email admin can't figure out how to alias *@house.gov to *@house.gov.us, you got bigger problems. pgpQENQXz2hef.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
In message cah_obiecqfjvgtkr2p-h8pzrrseps7jv9cz-6maqdbpgvpm...@mail.gmail.com , shawn wilson writes: On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why notâ. Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: 1) things that hard-code a list of ârealâ TLDs, and break when their expectations arenât met, and 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes. Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of oneâs way to break, either, but⦠I'm not defending any practice. Let's just say everything else goes smooth. How many fed employees are there and what's their average salary? Let's assume it takes them 5 minutes to change their email sig. How much would that cost? Over a 10 year transition period, $0. They will almost certainly make lots of other changes in that 10 year period. Change building, change title, change phone number . The list goes on and on. There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that someone can't communicate with their elected official. No term limits in the House so you'd start this and 50 years later, you'd be able to complete the project (due to the last congressman being replaced). There is postal address, phone number, office address, email address. All of these addresses change over time or were you under some strange illusion that these were immutable? Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
at ietf-9 jon and i discussed the problem solved (scaling of the zone editor function as the price of network interfaces dropped by orders of magnitude) by reliance upon iso3166-1, and the problems created by reliance upon iso3166-1. the economic success of .cat (unique among the icann 1st and 2nd round gtld projects) and the orders of magnitude growth of catalan (as measured by google) as the detected or announced language of network accessible content are facts. [note, as cto of the .cat project i'd no way of knowing either outcome would arise.] i remain of the view that language and culture, and fate independence from the vgrs business model are sufficient to expand on the 1591 set of namespaces. -e On 10/20/14 3:09 PM, manning bill wrote: FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US. And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said: GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. No reference as to who, when, or how. That same RFC says: In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called top-level domain names (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. Gotta love that last sentence, yes? --Sandy On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. ccTLDs came later. I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ. as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a orange-black model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model. the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government. -e On 10/20/14 3:26 PM, Doug Barton wrote: Obviously no serious consideration was given to that plan 10 years ago, or we wouldn't still be having the conversation today.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/20/14 4:07 PM, shawn wilson wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: 3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future Because this worked for IPv6? Actually it worked really well for IPv6 in USG-space. It also mostly worked for DNSSEC. Orgs that didn't make the deadline got spanked, and remediated. Of course DNSSEC in GOV has been a mixed bag, but to be fair, that's true of all the early adopters. Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list. In this case, it's all about the application-layer stuff - that'd be the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems, Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would (should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov. No argument, which is why the long tail. A non-trivial amount of that stuff will go away by attrition over a decade, and the rest will just have to be moved carefully. Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*. Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about? Actually I think I could make a very convincing argument that GOV would not be the most challenging problem of the 3 I mentioned, but I won't. :) The question here is not, Is it easy? The questions are, Is it the right thing to do? and Will it get easier to do tomorrow than it would have been to do today? I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been easier to do a decade ago, and 10 years from now it will be harder still. Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/20/14 6:30 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: | | On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net | wrote: | | Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”. | | Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: | | 1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when | their expectations aren’t met, and | | 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical | TLDs for their own purposes. | | Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not | worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but… Agree 100% -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJURdkCAAoJEFzGhvEaGryESOoIALGQRCkydGcbtt8ETfkaSwrp bigHmXH/ljEZVX2DpA2IthtXME7OEOMFlVsm9HAbWuCZaRAbVHlJPWVEaSuunrj7 jeQxir22mO3RX4Yil577u9k+/woa+5m9ymyuLHnSJHNSL7Lnqw4BKjUgPPEm66+r 9D6wACv+s49+MXtd0DDc0dHBcPvF5TyxzLwGMUSzRQCfdsilcB9WwZ5WBvjWdPz7 xAHlToVaYMZSJ1pkjeTm23/UU/re7PcNFaoeMIWkwewTX9GAnjkoacvxqm1ckEGz 3cdRtfzmCCauxY/inogkS0bB3XLMWvGjMWueh7IW/bcaCyzJQOkc9qJWSsOrAgo= =HO3c -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ. The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar. as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a orange-black model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model. Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ... the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government. ... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL would need continued operation during that period anyway). Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you comment on mine is uninteresting. -e On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ. The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar. as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a orange-black model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model. Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ... the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government. ... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL would need continued operation during that period anyway). Doug
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc. No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 20, 2014 11:54 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: On 10/20/14 4:07 PM, shawn wilson wrote: Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about? Actually I think I could make a very convincing argument that GOV would not be the most challenging problem of the 3 I mentioned, but I won't. :) You're right. But, edu and gov might be a tie with some obsolete tech they maintain that won't conform. But maybe not. As far as mil, I hold no clearance and if I did, I couldn't discuss even their public infrastructure (which AFAIK requires at least a public trust to work on). So I think leading this discussion to just the issues with gov (and maybe edu - but for some strange reason I have faith in them here) vs mil and edu as well...? The question here is not, Is it easy? The questions are, Is it the right thing to do? and Will it get easier to do tomorrow than it would have been to do today? No, the first question should be is it possible - we all seem to think its possible in some timeframe (though I wonder about the legality of changing active congressman's email). Next, is it the right thing - I'm going to go with yes, it probably is. But the later question is basically the cost benefit analysis - I'm just not sure if its worth it. And finally your question about time: I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been easier to do a decade ago, and 10 years from now it will be harder still. Will it get easier/harder if we wait - I agree, it would've been easier 10 years ago and with the cheap IoT crap starting to come out (none that uses DNS yet, but) its not going to get any easier. If y'all disagree with me and feel there'd be a real benefit to doing this, the process should be started now.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 20, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”. Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: 1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their expectations aren’t met, and 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes. Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but… And in the latter case, like “alternate roots,” that’s not an argument against creating more TLDs… They’ve already been created. It’s an argument against doing so in an uncoordinated manner, which is the source of the breakage. I’ve had operational issues introduced by *TLD operators and choices they made. I’m not going to document them here, but by using the root zone as a dumping ground for vanity addresses (e.g.: .google) highlights something that can be properly dealt with through normal processes. The number of things which will change from a predictable result to a unpredictable result (similar to when someone decided to wildcard .com) will continue to increase. Thankfully we can now receive email from spammer@example.google as it properly resolves and validates(!). (this is just one example). - Jared
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Do you have reason to believe that governments of other countries would *want* to use the .gov TLD? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. In part due to RFC1480. At one point, everything here in the US was set to transition away from the US- and TLD-centric models. It is now only a fuzzy memory, but at one point commercial entities could not just register a random .NET or .ORG domain name ... which would have resulted in a nicer-looking Internet domain system today. But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Why is the Greek flag always flow at the Olympics as well as the Olympic and host nation flags? Why is Britain the only country allowed, under Universal Postal Union regulations to have no national identification on its stamps used in international mail? Basically, if you are first, you tend to get extra privileges. Same with .gov for the US government. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip] The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace. So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ? In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive eligibility criteria ... JG -- -JH
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/14 12:42, Donald Eastlake wrote: Why is the Greek flag always flow at the Olympics as well as the Olympic and host nation flags? Why is Britain the only country allowed, under Universal Postal Union regulations to have no national identification on its stamps used in international mail? Basically, if you are first, you tend to get extra privileges. Same with .gov for the US government. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt Do as we say, not as we do
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip] The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace. So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ? Because the US has historically held control over the whole process. Regardless of what it may seem like, it's not a community process. In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive eligibility criteria In the specific case of .gov, I'd say that there's some danger to having multiple nations operating in that single 2LD space; .gov should probably be retired and federal institutions migrated to .fed.us. There's also namespace available for localities. But given the choice between rationality and insanity, usually the process seems to prefer insanity. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/2014 at 8:13 AM Jimmy Hess wrote: |[snip] |So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist |but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be |contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ |government entities regardless of nationality ? | |In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD |namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive eligibility |criteria = I'd rather see .gov (and by implication, .edu) usage phased out and replaced by country-specific domain names (e.g. fed.us). imo, the better way to fix an anachronism is not to bend the rules so the offenders are not so offensive, but to bring the offenders into compliance with the current rules.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
you can register .edu if you are a non-us institution as long as you are accredited by a US recognized organization Mehmet On Oct 19, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip] The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace. So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ? In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive eligibility criteria ... JG -- -JH
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace. Gee, someone should alert NANOG management that the list has fallen through a wormhole into 1996. To answer the original question, many governments use a subdomain of their ccTLD such as gc.ca or gov.uk. Or they just use a name directly in the ccTLD such as bundesregierung.de. R's, John
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/2014 06:20 AM, Joe Greco wrote: But given the choice between rationality and insanity, usually the process seems to prefer insanity. Or, alternatively, inertia. I would be like renumbering, only worse, because so many links would need to be found and updated.
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote: But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip] The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace. So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ? You forgot .MIL , this one will be even more fun to change... signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? Note that .mil is also restricted to US DoD, and that although .com is not restricted to US citizens and companies, it is under contract with US DoC. The only legacy gTLDs that are not in US control of some sort are .net and .org. Rubens
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? RFC 1591. Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? Under their ccTLDs. Note that .mil is also restricted to US DoD, Yes. See RFC 1591. and that although .com is not restricted to US citizens and companies, it is under contract with US DoC. The only legacy gTLDs that are not in US control of some sort are .net and .org. No. NET is under essentially the same contractual agreement as .COM (specifically, Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218742). By the terms of Amendment 24 of that CA, ORG was removed from the CA when that registry moved to PIR (in 2002 I believe). Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:51 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: RFC 1591. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. My how times have changed. -Jim P.
