The working group has consensus to give it a try. We may change our minds
of it takes too long, but it seems worth exploring from a process
perspective anyway.
On Feb 5, 2017 11:18 PM, "John R Levine" wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I've explained it enough times on this mailing list and in
>> the rel
I'm pretty sure I've explained it enough times on this mailing list and in
the relevant documents by now. If you don't agree, maybe we should just
accept that. If you don't remember the explanation, it's in the homenet
naming architecture doc I wrote.
Well, OK, I took another look, and from what
I'm pretty sure I've explained it enough times on this mailing list and in
the relevant documents by now. If you don't agree, maybe we should just
accept that. If you don't remember the explanation, it's in the homenet
naming architecture doc I wrote.
On Feb 5, 2017 11:05 PM, "John Levine" wrote:
In article <6391b5bb-19bd-4717-b9bb-ecd145f7b...@fugue.com> you write:
>On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:51 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> What is wrong with homenet.arpa ?
>
>homenet.arpa sounds like a service out there on the arpanet somewhere, not
>something local.
Why would that be important? It's m
On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:51 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> What is wrong with homenet.arpa ?
homenet.arpa sounds like a service out there on the arpanet somewhere, not
something local.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l
> On Feb 4, 2017, at 4:46 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/02/2017 02:13, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Right, that's always been the problem with using this _for the DNS_.
>> Homenet has no choice in that, because the whole point of the homenet
>> name is precisely to enable in-homenet DNS wit
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 12:26:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Given there are no rules for this type of namespace
Which "type of namespace" do you mean?
I think there are three possible namespaces you're talking about:
1. Domain names. There are rules for these, though they're
pos
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 10:16:20AM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
> [0]
> Reservation of .internal as a Special Use
> Name. ...
>
> This document reserves the string "internal" for use as an internal
> DNS
>
> [ Ed note: Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional backg
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> My memory is that only after that
> did we start thinking of a sort of 1918-style part of the DNS as
> well. That may have been a mistake, since as this discussion is
> showing the propertie
DNAME was considered early in the IDN evaluations, so it's not exactly
unknown in the Icann community
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 15:33 Steve Crocker wrote:
> We (ICANN) have no mechanism or process for inserting a DNAME record into
> the root. We do have a process for considering the general issue
10 matches
Mail list logo
