Steve Crocker writes:
Folks,
I`ve been watching the dialog on this list regarding to level names.
Attached is my attempt to clarify the state of affairs and identify the
loose ends. Both PDF and pptx versions attached, the latter in case
someone is moved to edit the slides
On Jul 6, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Edward Lewis edward.le...@icann.org wrote:
On 7/5/15, 7:26, DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker
dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
the ISO 3166 maintenance agency
Thanks. Minor comments in line below.
Steve
On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis j...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts.
Edward Lewis writes:
On 7/5/15, 7:26, DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker
dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf
Putting the focus on this part of Steve¹s original email for now:
On 7/5/15, 7:26 AM, DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker
dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
o ICANN speaks indistinctly about subset 5.
o Does the IETF have a process for moving a name from subset 2 to
Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Akira Kato and I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
* Added reference to DLV {{RFC5074}} and imported some sentences.
* Added Aggressive Negative Caching Flag idea.
* Added detailed algorithms in
Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts.
Edward Lewis writes:
On 7/5/15, 7:26, DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker
dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
the
Sorry for the empty previous post.
My recollection is somewhat different from the AC requesting the
revocation. But then the then AC reads this list and can relate
himself if he wishes to do so.
And I was quite upset at the time because I wanted dibs on IMODI.UM
(just for the fun of it, not for
As we've been having this thread around TLDs, I noticed this item in Hacker
News this morning of a new overlay network that is designed to use hashes of
public keys for addressing:
https://github.com/zrm/snow
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9843373
As I'm sure our resident bad-idea-fairy can relate in greater detail, .UM was a
delegated ccTLD with SLD subdelegations and at least one user, before the
administrative contact requested that the TLD delegation be rescinded or
deactivated or whatever you want to call it.
Just a little more
-07-07 11:27, Bill Woodcock wrote:
As I'm sure our resident bad-idea-fairy can relate in greater detail,
.UM was a delegated ccTLD with SLD subdelegations and at least one user,
before the administrative contact requested that the TLD delegation be
rescinded or deactivated or whatever you want to
11 matches
Mail list logo
