technically ICANN is only really in charge of the gTLD name space as the
ccTLD one depends on the ISO 2 letter alpha code elements over which
ICANN has no control.
I suppose this might make sense as an informational RFC about here's
what is likely to happen if you squat on these names that
John,
technically ICANN is only really in charge of the gTLD name space as the
ccTLD one depends on the ISO 2 letter alpha code elements over which
ICANN has no control.
el
On 2020-06-14 02:03 , John Levine wrote:
> In article <8bf10121-cf4b-4341-bc40-f427a8f4b...@apnic.net> you write:
>> This
In article <8bf10121-cf4b-4341-bc40-f427a8f4b...@apnic.net> you write:
>This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but the
>venue where such
>topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I realise that
>explicitly opposing such WG
>calls for adoption is
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 21:39:05 UTC Geoff Huston wrote:
> ...
>
> I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of
> policy regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades
> ago, and in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such
>
On 13 Jun 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston wrote:
> This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but
> the venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I
> realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to
> heresy in
On Jun 13, 2020, at 17:39, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>
> I believe that the IETF passed responsibility for the determination of policy
> regarding the DNS namespace to what we now call ICANN some decades ago, and
> in line with that transfer of role and responsibility such discussions should
>
This is likely to be a Fine Proposal, worthy of serious consideration, but the
venue where such topics should be considered is elsewhere, in my view. I
realise that explicitly opposing such WG calls for adoption is tantamount to
heresy in today’s IETF, but nevertheless I must record my
I think there's an implementation difficulty. Consider:
1. alpn=h2 ; clear enough
2. alpn="h2" ; should be equivalent
3. alpn=\h\2 ; should also be equivalent
4. alpn=h2,h3 ; ok (two values)
5. alpn="h2","h3" ; should be equivalent
6.
Seciont 6.1 says:
> The presentation value of "alpn" is a comma-separated list of one or more
> "alpn-id"s. Any commas present in the protocol-id are escaped by a backslash:
>
> escaped-octet = %x00-2b / "\," / %x2d-5b / "\\" / %x5D-FF
> escaped-id = 1*(escaped-octet)
> alpn-value =
