Hi Rob,
On Oct 19, 2022, at 08:54, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
> The reason for my interjection is only because I’ve seen some comments
> stating that this topic is too hard, we can’t get rough consensus, and hence
> the WG should give up and declare defeat. However, from my reading of the
Hi WG & chairs,
I’m chiming in on this thread with a “responsible AD for the alt-tld draft” hat
on.
The reason for my interjection is only because I’ve seen some comments stating
that this topic is too hard, we can’t get rough consensus, and hence the WG
should give up and declare defeat.
Warren Kumari writes:
> 1: as we've already seen, nothing stops people from just using whatever names
> they want[0], and so there is no guarantee that registry would be complete and
> correct.
So the interesting side-point is that what happens with people that
don't want to go through the
Martin Schanzenbach writes:
> Wouldn't such a WG need the .alt as a prerequisite to any actual work or
> at least have .alt as its first work item?
Actually, that's only one solution. It's the easiest and hence the
reason it's being preferred.
The probably *right* solution is to fix all the
On OCT17@11:53, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> > Let's please leave Internet lawyering to lawyers. If people want a
> > legal opinion on this draft, the IETF does have resources for that.
>
> But it is to the core of the ICANN / IETF divide, so IETF shouldn't
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 8:03 AM Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC
> on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld.
>
> We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns that we
> feel need to be resolved before any
While we're talking about this draft, I would like to suggest that the
draft discuss the interpretation of URIs containing ".alt" hostnames. I
have great difficulty understanding what "https://example.foo.alt/; means
... but most of the interest in alternative naming systems seems to be
based on
Speaking only for myself (and definitely not for my employer, GoDaddy)...
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:45 PM Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> On 17.10.22 04:20, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> > Basically, .alt is what IETF recommends you should not do, and we
> > should not keep
> > a registry of entries within
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:12 AM Joe Abley wrote:
>
> My goal is certainly not to put any brakes on if the effect of that is to
> make things move more slowly. I apologise if that's what I have done in
> suggesting to Brian that semantic-free labels do not fit the problem space.
>
>
And I, in
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 7:20 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> 1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is
> a problem for two reasons.
>
> One could advance the 6761bis proposal document first, which would remove
> these
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:44 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Paul!
>
> Good conversation! I hope we can discuss some of this "in person"
> (whatever that means these days) at IETF 115.
>
> On 17.10.22 04:20, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> 1. As far as I can
Hi Joe,
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Abley
> Sent: 16 October 2022 20:30
> To: Brian Dickson
> Cc: Eliot Lear ; Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
> Suzanne Woolf ; dnsop@ietf.org; DNSOP-Chairs Chairs
>
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?
>
>
Dear colleagues,
I work for the Internet Society but this is emphatically not the position of
the Internet Society.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 03:03:10PM +, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns me on the basis
that having the IETF “recognize”
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Eliot Lear wrote:
Let's please leave Internet lawyering to lawyers. If people want a legal
opinion on this draft, the IETF does have resources for that.
But it is to the core of the ICANN / IETF divide, so IETF shouldn't wade
into ICANN territory.
We cannot assume that
On 17.10.22 17:16, Paul Wouters wrote:
But does the IETF, when running a FCFS registry, want to take the legal
liability of your adjudicating?
Again, Paul, if you want to ask counsel for advice and have them provide
it here, great. Otherwise we end up Internet-lawyering, which is also
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote:
On 17.10.22 12:37, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Well, I'm just waiting for the request to register amazon.alt.
(or xxx.alt, or ru[ssia].alt, or .alt, which some
people will do just for fun)
Unless, of course, you mean
> On 17 Oct 2022, at 15:12, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Since it's not clear, my favoured approach to this entire subject is to do
> whatever is the quickest way to resolve the conversation so that this working
> group can get on with work that, in my opinion, no disrespect intended, is
> less
On 17 Oct 2022, at 10:06, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> Technically, GNS celebrated its 10th birthday in 2022 ;)
:-)
> But back to business: You cannot think both that alternative name systems are
> fleeting trends and at the same time are a serious threat to DNS namespace
> consistency.
> That
On OCT17@07:11, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2022, at 23:03, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> > The main problem with "giraffe.org" and similar is that the subdomains are
> > leased, not owned. A glitch in the renewal, and they are grabbed by some
> > domain catcher and redirected to "my sexy
> On 17 Oct 2022, at 13:00, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
> wrote:
>
> I don't want to adjudicate names, but I have no problem adjudicating naming
> systems, including transparent attempts to get vanity names. Since none of
> those are naming systems, they would all get the
Hi Vittorio,
On 17.10.22 12:37, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Well, I'm just waiting for the request to register amazon.alt.
(or xxx.alt, or ru[ssia].alt, or .alt, which some people
will do just for fun)
Unless, of course, you mean that the ISE will adjudicate trademarks, define which strings
are
On Oct 16, 2022, at 23:03, Christian Huitema wrote:
> The main problem with "giraffe.org" and similar is that the subdomains are
> leased, not owned. A glitch in the renewal, and they are grabbed by some
> domain catcher and redirected to "my sexy giraffe" or some such.
On the face of it that
> Il 17/10/2022 08:44 CEST Eliot Lear ha scritto:
>
> Let's please leave Internet lawyering to lawyers. If people want a
> legal opinion on this draft, the IETF does have resources for that.
>
> [...]
>
> No matter what we say in the ALT draft, someone could burden the IETF
> with a new
Hi Paul!
Good conversation! I hope we can discuss some of this "in person"
(whatever that means these days) at IETF 115.
On 17.10.22 04:20, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761.
This is a problem
On 10/16/2022 9:29 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
However, I don't think we are starting from that position. For example we hear
there is demand for .giraffe for the giraffe naming system described
athttps://giraffe.org/ because using giraffe.org as an anchor for that naming
system in the namespace
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is a
problem for two reasons.
One could advance the 6761bis proposal document first, which would
remove these non-compliance items as those would be no longer needed
(as the bis
On 16.10.22 12:03, Brian Dickson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 9:08 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> > Hiya!
> >
> > Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward. On this point:
> > On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> 2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of
Op 16 okt. 2022 om 15:03 heeft Brian Dickson
het volgende geschreven:
> For example, using a hash function, such as sha2-256, with output encoded as
> base32hex.
> (This is just an example; any suitable function that takes URI as input and
> produces an ASCII DNS-compatible label as output
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 9:08 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hiya!
>
> Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward. On this point:
> On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>> 2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns me on the
>> basis that having the IETF
Hiya!
Thanks to Suzanne and the chairs for moving things forward. On this point:
On 16.10.22 17:22, Warren Kumari wrote:
2. Having the IETF maintain a registry of pseudo-SLDs concerns me
on the basis that having the IETF “recognize” (if only by
recording) such pseudo-delegations
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC
> on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld.
>
> We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns that we
> feel need to be resolved before
31 matches
Mail list logo
