Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

2016-09-25 Thread hellekin
On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF. > > Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

2016-09-25 Thread Jim Reid
> On 25 Sep 2016, at 17:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> >> This label is intended to be used as the final (rightmost) label > > No. It is rightmost only in LTR scripts. "final" is correct, > "rightmost" isn't. Please delete it. The original text is correct and doesn’t

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt

2016-09-25 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:57:05AM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote a message of 48 lines which said: > Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain > Authors : Warren Kumari > Andrew Sullivan >

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

2016-09-25 Thread Ted Lemon
Stephane, have you read draft-tldr-sutld-ps? I would be curious to know if you disagree with the specific set of problems enumerated there; I realize that you don't believe that there is a problem that motivates a change; my question is, do you agree or disagree that the things described in the

Re: [DNSOP] Where in a CNAME chain is the QNAME?

2016-09-25 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:57:26PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote a message of 73 lines which said: > This would I believe cause problems if one then concludes that the > subtree below the QNAME is absent. For the record, I agree with Robert Edmonds: this case is well

Re: [DNSOP] On the call for adoption on Special Use Names (Please! Pretty please, with a cherry on top?!)

2016-09-25 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:46:36AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote a message of 115 lines which said: > We could -- it is entirely possible that this is not a solvable > problem -- however, before we can make that determination, and even > more importantly, before we can clearly

[DNSOP] ENT and NXDOMAIN: the case of RFC 4035

2016-09-25 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
[If you don't enjoy byzantine discussions, with a lot of chapter-and-verse mentions of RFCs, please skip the thread.] I've been directed recently to RFC 4035 and there is a question I would like to ask about its handling of ENTs. Section 3.1.3 says: No Data: The zone contains RRsets that