On 23/08/2019 22:39, Joe Abley wrote:
People have always been able to anchor their non-DNS naming schemes
to domain names they control in the DNS as a way to avoid collisions,
and nobody has seemed to think that's a good idea. Is it more likely
that someone would anchor their ARTICHOKE
On Aug 26, 2019, at 6:03 AM, Vittorio Bertola
wrote:
> This is also why not having a registry under .alt makes sense. Having one
> would make .alt second-level domains almost a functional duplicate of special
> use TLDs, raising the bar to get them and making special use TLDs only better
> in
> Il 24 agosto 2019 00:35 Warren Kumari ha scritto:
>
> There was also some discussions with Jacob (or perhaps Alec) saying
> that if this had existed when they started, they probably would have
> used onion.alt instead of .onion.
>
> Whether or not people would *actually* have used it is
On 8/23/2019 2:18 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> [ No hats!]
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:29 PM John Levine wrote:
>>> So it would be helpful to know if you think the recommendations are in fact
>>> reasonable.
>> I think they're reasonable but I would more clearly distinguish cases
>> by where
2. Names handled through mutant DNS which can returns IP addresses (.local,
.localhost, .homenet/.home.arpa)
I think it's clear that nobody has ever shown signs of wanting to anchor
anything like this under .ARPA if it's a name that a user might ever have to
see. The reason we might imagine
I don't mean to channel Warren (it's unnecessary because even when he's asleep
he's still reading mail) but I think the whole point of the ALT proposal is not
to have a registry. A registry attracts policy and dispute resolution; an
informal, decentralised understanding that anything goes,
On Aug 23, 2019, at 6:35 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> There was also some discussions with Jacob (or perhaps Alec) saying
> that if this had existed when they started, they probably would have
> used onion.alt instead of .onion.
This wouldn’t have solved the problem. Remember that the driving
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:20 PM Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Anybody who was currently harbouring plans to apply for ALT in some future
> round of new gTLD applications would therefore presumably feel harmed by a
> decision to make it impossible for those plans to be executed.
>
That is a very clear
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:39 PM Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Hi Warren,
>
> On 23 Aug 2019, at 17:18, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:29 PM John Levine wrote:
> >>
> >>> So it would be helpful to know if you think the recommendations are in
> >>> fact reasonable.
> >>
> >> I think
On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:07, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:40 PM Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> I have never been very excited about your ALT proposal. However, I don't
>> think it will do any harm beyond thwarting any secret plans anybody might
>> have...
>
> What exactly do you mean?
Hi Ted,
On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:05, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I haven’t read the latest version in a few weeks, and I must have missed the
> part about the “alt” TLD. (Actually, I just checked, and my memory was
> correct—it isn’t there.)
Warren is talking about a different document.
> My problem
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:40 PM Joe Abley wrote:
>
> I have never been very excited about your ALT proposal. However, I don't
> think it will do any harm beyond thwarting any secret plans anybody might
> have...
What exactly do you mean?
thanks,
Rob
I haven’t read the latest version in a few weeks, and I must have missed the
part about the “alt” TLD. (Actually, I just checked, and my memory was
correct—it isn’t there.) My problem with the “alt” TLD as originally proposed
was that there was no registry. I think this is nearly useless.
On 18 Aug 2019, at 14:29, John Levine wrote:
[...]
> 2. Names handled through mutant DNS which can returns IP addresses (.local,
> .localhost, .homenet/.home.arpa)
[...]
> For 2, we seem to agree that future reservations, if any, will go under .arpa.
I think I know what you're getting out
Hi Warren,
On 23 Aug 2019, at 17:18, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:29 PM John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> So it would be helpful to know if you think the recommendations are in fact
>>> reasonable.
>>
>> I think they're reasonable but I would more clearly distinguish cases
>> by
[ No hats!]
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:29 PM John Levine wrote:
>
> >So it would be helpful to know if you think the recommendations are in fact
> >reasonable.
>
> I think they're reasonable but I would more clearly distinguish cases
> by where the protocol switch is, where I think these are the
>So it would be helpful to know if you think the recommendations are in fact
>reasonable.
I think they're reasonable but I would more clearly distinguish cases
by where the protocol switch is, where I think these are the
interesting ones:
1. Names handled totally unlike the DNS with nothing
(Draft author hat here, not WG chair)
> On Aug 10, 2019, at 11:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
> you
> write:
>> Thank you Paul.
>>
>> As an incentive to everyone else -- there is an Easter Egg hidden in
>> this document: if you judiciously choose letters from the text (and
>>
In article
you write:
>Thank you Paul.
>
>As an incentive to everyone else -- there is an Easter Egg hidden in
>this document: if you judiciously choose letters from the text (and
>reorder them) you can create a very rude word.
I think that like everyone else I've read it, but I'm not sure
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> It's time again for everyone's favorite topic -- Special Use Domain Names!
>
> Back in October 2015 the IETF approved RFC7686 - 'The ".onion"
> Special-Use Domain Name' -- those who were involved no doubt remember
> that it was
Thank you Paul.
As an incentive to everyone else -- there is an Easter Egg hidden in
this document: if you judiciously choose letters from the text (and
reorder them) you can create a very rude word.
W
P.S: Hey, it's worth a try!
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:31 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue,
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Warren Kumari wrote:
[0]: There is lore that the IESG actually halted reservations under
the 6761 process, but that doesn't seem to be the case, or, if it is,
I cannot find a reference; if there is anything saying so, can someone
please send a link?
If this refers to my
22 matches
Mail list logo
