In message 505fe0c6.50...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 09/23/2012 21:07, Mark Andrews wrote:
It does if http://myname; goes to a local machine one day and the
next day it goes to a tld the next day because myname was added
to the root zone and that zone has A, or SRV
Logically, shouldn't a right-side dot fix all of this?
If I browse to:
http://myname./
I would expect to get a gTLD, as the right-side dot represents the root.
If I were to browse to:
http://myname/
I would expect to hit my local definitions, then search domain, then
fail or hit the browser
* Paul Vixie:
those are country code top level domains. cctld's enjoy national
sovereignty
Uhm, most of them are companies, and not subjects of international
law. Few of them, however, have entered binding contracts with ICANN.
___
dns-operations
In message
CA+TcGd-6gQ99yAijNCWOwSeAutU0WA=g6spf6ju60h7bvk5...@mail.gmail.com, Kyle
Creyts writes:
Logically, shouldn't a right-side dot fix all of this?
No.
If I browse to:
http://myname./
I would expect to get a gTLD, as the right-side dot represents the root.
If I were to browse
Florian,
On Sep 24, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
* Paul Vixie:
those are country code top level domains. cctld's enjoy national sovereignty
Uhm, most of them are companies, and not subjects of international law. Few
of them, however, have entered binding
On 9/24/12 12:07 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Uhm, most of them are companies, and not subjects of international
law. Few of them, however, have entered binding contracts with ICANN.
Is this something you think you have an adequate understanding of, or
do you think you may have an inadequte
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, P Vixie wrote:
To change the internet so that foo@Microsoft has universal not local
meaning would require action by many millions of parties not just by
Microsoft.
Anyone who did not make the change would be at risk from the new
behavior and new content by others while
I don't understand this entire debate. I am sorry. Can somebody please
frame it?
My understanding is that if there is a rightside dot... that the domain is
fully qualified.
I know for a fact that, even with the foregoing, if somebody locally
wants to rewrite a domain there is nothing that is
On 23 Sep 2012, at 09:38, Fred Morris wrote:
I don't understand this entire debate. I am sorry. Can somebody please
frame it?
Read the SSAC report: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf
.
So what, exactly, *is* the security implication?
There are many. You even
On 09/21/2012 15:46, Rick Jones wrote:
2. We are not limited by the status quo. While the _current_ state of
things is that we cannot guarantee that single labels will work reliably
in all cases, those who are putting very large sums of money into the
process of acquiring and operating these
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:23:02AM -0700,
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote
a message of 38 lines which said:
I'm not sure how ICANN is supposed to do that without 'regulations'.
I don't think I said that ICANN should regulate nothing. It is a
regulator (even if it denies it, claiming
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
But not all regulations are good. And this one is clearly useless.
Clearly useless is clearly overstated. While it is certainly
debatable what the best course of action is to fit with both personal
and organizational policy goals, it has been well demonstrated that
money changes everything.
there is more money in brands-composed-of-letters than in novel marks made
from exclusively from digits. money changes everything is sufficient to
explain rule making restricting digit labels and promoting letter labels
where each exhibits context depenedent
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:38:44PM -0700,
P Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote
a message of 77 lines which said:
To change the internet so that foo@Microsoft has universal not local
meaning would require action by many millions of parties not just by
Microsoft.
Yes. It is also true for IPv6,
On 9/22/2012 8:48 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:38:44PM -0700,
P Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote
a message of 77 lines which said:
To change the internet so that foo@Microsoft has universal not local
meaning would require action by many millions of parties not
Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
those are country code top level domains. cctld's enjoy national
sovereignty -- it is not up to ietf or icann or anybody else to tell
them what they can't do. thus they are unaffected by icann policy, and
their choices cannot guide our discussions of icann policy.
Randy Bush (randy) writes:
But surely they can be used to illustrate the issues that this will
cause with applications...
perhaps narrowing core technologies to the intersection of the un-flawed
abilities of all applications will be an increasingly narrowing path
which leads no place
perhaps narrowing core technologies to the intersection of the
un-flawed abilities of all applications will be an increasingly
narrowing path which leads no place pleasant.
True. I'm not particularly against the idea of using dotless
domains, but we know who's going to live with the support
On 21 Sep 2012, at 09:28, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Worked fine with Chromium and lynx, despite the ICANN FUD.
Not for me with any of the browsers I had available:
Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Camino, or lynx.
YMMV, I guess ...
/Niall
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
B
Le 21/09/2012 10:07, Bart Smit a écrit :
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this
On 21 Sep 2012, at 10:07, Bart Smit wrote:
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing
scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome,
safari,
and opera on osx) handle this
Bart Smit (bit) writes:
Phil Regnauld wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Bart Smit wrote:
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
I might be a bit daft, but there's a very big difference in my
techy-education with typing in URL's versus the regular people who
just type
It probably depends on how your O/S handles the resolution - typically
Windows systems will try and resolve a dot-less name using a local LAN
broadcast looking typically for a PC on the same LAN segment by that
name - but it will depend on your config (e.g. domain controller or not,
LAN
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12:42AM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
gentlefolk, i call your attention to this:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
i've already explained as best i can:
Out of 315 TLDs, there are already 17 dotless ones: [list omitted].
This fails to observe the existence of at least two label allocation regimes,
one contemporanious with publication of rfc1591 (1994) and one or more that
were introduced subsequently, by government contractors.
As Paul
On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Phil Regnauld regna...@nsrc.org wrote:
Paul Vixie (paul) writes:
gentlefolk, i call your attention to this:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-en.htm
i've already explained as best i can:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
In Safari, http://dk./ worked while http://dk/ didn't.
Yes. I was going to point that out: the rightmost dot. Traditionally
without the rightmost dot is a resource or relative (or whatever you
want to call it) and the rightmost dot makes it a /fully/
Stephane,
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
I'm not particularly against the idea of using dotless
domains, but we know who's going to live with the support
questions when users start complaining. Paul's piece on
CircleID sums it up
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
http://dk/ doesn't work particularly well on my Win 7
On 21 Sep 2012 at 10:28, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:12:42AM +0200,
Phil Regnauld regna...@nsrc.org wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various
On 09/21/2012 11:33 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Surprised no one's brought up http://dk/ as an already existing scenario
that doesn't work (try it in various browsers).
Bad example. The first *four* browsers I tried (firefox, chrome, safari,
and opera on osx) handle this perfectly.
2. We are not limited by the status quo. While the _current_ state of
things is that we cannot guarantee that single labels will work reliably
in all cases, those who are putting very large sums of money into the
process of acquiring and operating these domains (especially the .brand
domains)
David Conrad (drc) writes:
As documented in SAC053 (and discussed on this list), weird shit happens
because many software developers assumed that a domain name has a dot in it.
Given there is one root and that pretty much everybody is dependent upon it,
you probably want to minimize the
To change the internet so that foo@Microsoft has universal not local meaning
would require action by many millions of parties not just by Microsoft.
Anyone who did not make the change would be at risk from the new behavior and
new content by others while still being compatible with the specs
On 2012-09-22 1:50 AM, e...@abenaki.wabanaki.net wrote:
... finding actionable harm in a restriction on zone data that
restricts only private persons who intentionally propose to offer an
withdrawn hostname semantic, and only through a few ports and single
transport protocol, while overlooking
37 matches
Mail list logo
