All
Sorry for the delay, the IETF moves very few RFCs to Historic
(thats' another discussion), but all looks like ready to move forward
This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv
Current versions of the draft is available here:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> All
>
> Sorry for the delay, the IETF moves very few RFCs to Historic
> (thats' another discussion), but all looks like ready to move forward
>
Indeed. This document looks good to me, but for process wonkery
reasons it needs to be WGLC'ed
Hi Tim,
On 23 Aug 2019, at 11:23, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/
>
The document looks fine to me.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:09 PM Erik Kline
wrote:
>
> +1 from me, fwiw.
>
Seems fine to me, as well.
thanks,
Rob
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[ 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
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
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
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 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
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
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 WG of the IETF.
Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
Authors : Warren Kumari
Andrew
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 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
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 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?
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 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 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
19 matches
Mail list logo
