On 8/1/22 15:58, Ben Schwartz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 8:32 AM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear) mailto:rfc-...@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:
...
I do agree with Martin that it would be helpful to have some
registration of names so that conflicts between name spaces can be
Hiya,
I've scanned the draft and read the thread.
AFAICS the draft does not ask for a new 6761 (*) special use
name, so ISTM speculation as to what the authors or their
pals would be better off doing is moot. (I.e. there's no
point telling 'em to go away and come back asking to use
gnu.alt or
On 02/08/2022 14:22, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
So, we mostly separated the technical protocol design from the
namespace issue.
No such separation is possible - the DNS is the Domain Name _System_.
That _system_ is the combination of:
- the wire protocol
- the authoritative servers (from
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 11:40 PM Martin Schanzenbach
wrote:
> Excerpts from Brian Dickson's message of 2022-08-03 18:09:32 -0700:
> > Top-reply (not apologizing for doing so, either):
> >
> > If I read the actual draft correctly, it is _not_ intended to be a DNS
> > drop-in replacement.
> >
> On 4. Aug 2022, at 14:06, Vittorio Bertola
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Il 04/08/2022 08:40 CEST Martin Schanzenbach ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> Anyway, going to ICANN in order to collect a TLD is not a reasonable process
>> for
>> publishing our draft.
>> We would not even know what the process would
> Il 04/08/2022 08:40 CEST Martin Schanzenbach ha
> scritto:
>
> Anyway, going to ICANN in order to collect a TLD is not a reasonable process
> for
> publishing our draft.
> We would not even know what the process would be (after the RFC? before
> writing it? While writing it? What if ICANN
Excerpts from Brian Dickson's message of 2022-08-03 18:09:32 -0700:
> Top-reply (not apologizing for doing so, either):
>
> If I read the actual draft correctly, it is _not_ intended to be a DNS
> drop-in replacement.
> Instead, it is meant to be an _alternative_ to DNS.
>
It is intended to
Top-reply (not apologizing for doing so, either):
If I read the actual draft correctly, it is _not_ intended to be a DNS
drop-in replacement.
Instead, it is meant to be an _alternative_ to DNS.
So, why even use DNS-compatible label strings? That is an obviously
conflict-causing choice, which is
John Levine wrote on 2022-08-01 15:22:
It appears that Paul Vixie said:
i'm particularly interested in whether the root zone should have an NS
for the private-label tld(s) (.alt or ._alt or whatever) with an NS of
"localhost" and a dnssec "opt out" indicator so that these private tlds
can
> On 2. Aug 2022, at 14:39, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2022 13.53, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>> This is not an oversight (altough I have to admin it did not occur to me
>> that this a valid DNS TLD at the time of writing). [...]
>>
> Oh, I understood that this DNSOP thread - notably
On 02/08/2022 13.53, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
This is not an oversight (altough I have to admin it did not occur to me
that this a valid DNS TLD at the time of writing). [...]
Oh, I understood that this DNSOP thread - notably the first post -
originated as an attempt to reduce collisions
This is not an oversight (altough I have to admin it did not occur to me
that this a valid DNS TLD at the time of writing).
You can see in Section 7.1 that we also use "www.example.org" in the
draft.
We address the namespace topic in Section 9.9.
As mentioned, the draft currently goes all-in with
Interesting bit: the current -gns draft even uses the .pet TLD in an
example, which is a TLD that actually exists in the official global DNS.___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Hi,
Excerpts from Peter Thomassen's message of 2022-08-01 16:57:45 -0400:
>
> On 8/1/22 12:01, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
> >> (may be with status Experimental since, as Joe Abley said, there is
> >> clearly no IETF
+1
This feels like a process run-around. The conversation has been held
in DNSOP and didn't reach consensus. It is not like the WG said "we
don't care" -the WG cared immensely. It just couldn't come to a single
point of view.
A lot of the issues are layer-8/9 and I think it's most likely this is
On Aug 1, 2022, at 08:31, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
wrote:
>
I do not think the ISE should ignore or be a workaround for RFC 6761 Special
Use Domains. There any many problems with its application and its lack of
application but adding the ISE as a third party along with the
It appears that Paul Vixie said:
>i'm particularly interested in whether the root zone should have an NS
>for the private-label tld(s) (.alt or ._alt or whatever) with an NS of
>"localhost" and a dnssec "opt out" indicator so that these private tlds
>can fit into the authenticity
It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
said:
> On the one hand, we need to find a
>way for people to explore alternative namespaces that look a bit like
>domain names. On the other hand, we don't want to create problems with
>user expectations.
It is fine for people to
On 8/1/22 12:01, Paul Vixie wrote:
I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
(may be with status Experimental since, as Joe Abley said, there is
clearly no IETF consensus). Note that I am skeptical about their use:
most people who "preempt" .eth, .bitcoin, .web3 or
Excerpts from Stephane Bortzmeyer's message of 2022-08-01 17:29:38 +0200:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0200,
> Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote
> a message of 89 lines which said:
>
> > Whether that means using TLD labels that begin with _ or whether
> > that means
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote on 2022-08-01 08:29:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0200,
Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
...
I agree and I think publication of these drafts would be a good idea
(may be with status Experimental since,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:31:48PM +0200,
Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote
a message of 89 lines which said:
> Whether that means using TLD labels that begin with _ or whether
> that means suffixing them with ".ALT", I leave to you experts to
> sort. I do agree with Martin
On Aug 1, 2022, at 15:58, Ben Schwartz
wrote:
> I think we already have such a mechanism: ICANN. People who want unique
> registrations can acquire them via the existing ICANN and registry processes.
I think we have been around and around these arguments at the ietf and in
various parts of
Hello from your friendly neighborhood independent submissions editor.
It is indeed the case that draft-schanzen-gns is in conflict review. It
is also the case that Warren and I have been discussing that review.
Obviously there are some concerns. On the one hand, we need to find a
way for
24 matches
Mail list logo
