On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Eliot Lear said:
As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is
simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If the IANA does not
host it, then by shifting it elsewhere this group is actually weakening
the IANA
On 21.10.22 18:48, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be better
> > as a scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common pattern for
> > modifications to URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and informs the software
> > that this URI is
Eliot,
On Oct 23, 2022, at 2:15 AM, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>>
wrote:
On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>> said:
As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is
simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If
On 23.10.22 10:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Eliot,
>
> On Oct 23, 2022, at 2:15 AM, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>> said:
> As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It
Martin Schanzenbach wrote on 2022-10-23 04:34:
...
Name notion of a "user expectation" for names was thrown around a lot.
Using +alt://example.com or +gns://example.com is
actually making it worse with respect to that aspect than .alt as SUTLD, no?
yes.
It is as if we are chasing a moving
Martin Schanzenbach wrote on 2022-10-23 04:38:
On 23.10.22 10:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
...
The chairs would like to hear it if anyone has anything new to say about such a
registry on its technical merits, including specific registry policy and
operational challenges with administering it
Suzanne,
On Oct 23, 2022, at 3:50 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> We've been told repeatedly that no one wants to engage legal analysis or
> liaison communications on a document that doesn't have WG consensus.
This appears broken.
In this specific case, the way forward appears to be predicated on
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 : Use of GOST 2012 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and
RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC
Authors
David Conrad wrote on 2022-10-23 12:00:
Rob,
not rod, but i have three comments.
On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of
the intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of
disagreement on that intent. As far as I can tell, the points of
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track
Hello, Warren
Just uploaded the 12th version. The only change is status of GOST R
34.11-94 -- DEPRECATED.
--
Boris
23.10.2022 18:20, Warren Kumari пишет:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari
Rob,
On Oct 22, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> As I read it, the partitioning of the domain name namespace is really to
> achieve two aims:
On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of the
intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of
On Oct 23, 2022, at 12:00 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On this mailing list, I think there is a pretty good understanding of the
> intent of .alt and I don’t think there is much in the way of disagreement on
> that intent. As far as I can tell, the points of contention are:
>
> 1) whether the
Hi Ben and Wes,
On 21.10.22 20:45, Ben Schwartz wrote:
Rather than placing "alt" in the TLD position, I think it might be
better as a scheme modifier: https+alt://... This is a common
pattern for modifications to URI schemes (c.f. git+ssh://), and
informs the software that this URI is
Paul,
On Oct 23, 2022, at 1:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 1) Ask the stupid question.
> Again? It has already been answered many times in the negative. There are
> even RFCs about it. Asking it again is a waste of people's time.
I’m unaware. Could you point me to the ICANN Board resolution,
15 matches
Mail list logo
