On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:00:01PM -0800,
internet-dra...@ietf.org internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
Title : Top Level Domain Name Specification
Author(s) : L. Liman
Filename: draft-liman-tld-names-00.txt
[What is the
bortzme...@nic.fr:
[What is the proper email address for discussions? Let's try dnsop.]
[I had hoped to avoid pinpointing it to a specific working group just
yet ... It's neither a typical protocol spec, nor a server operations
issue, so it doesn't fit naturally in either of them.]
tldlabel =
You may be quite right about that. It's one of the things that I want
to have a discussion about. I started out with a somewhat conservative
specification, to see where the discussion will take us.
More voices?
I would keep the ABNF to purely *technical* limits as well. Don't let
the ABNF
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:56:35PM +0100,
Alexander Mayrhofer alexander.mayrho...@nic.at wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
I would keep the ABNF to purely *technical* limits as well. Don't let
the ABNF preclude any policy decisions.
+1
But this criteria is easier written than
At 15:13 +0100 3/4/09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
But this criteria is easier written than applied. For instance, should
the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain names? There is no
*technical* reason to ban them.
There is one.
I am not the best person to describe the entire problem but
Dear WG,
the agenda for San Francisco gives us a 100 minute slot on Tuesday afternoon:
Date: Tuesday, 25 March 2009
Time: 15:20 - 17:00 (UTC-8) //mmox, ancp, mext, speermint, rtgarea, keyprov,
krb-wg
Please let Rob and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda.
Also, please note
In message 20090304165539.gn6...@shinkuro.com, Andrew Sullivan writes:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:13:57PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
But this criteria is easier written than applied. For instance, should
the ABNF allow fully-numeric top-level domain names? There is no
*technical*
