In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dean Ande
rson writes:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.
I think it is you who is reading too much into the .tel and .mobi TLD.
These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into
% There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them:
%
% Sub-domains of .tel may not be arbitrarily defined; rather
% they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard.
% A valid e164 domain name under the .tel TLD is defined
% as follows:
%
%
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Markus Stumpf wrote:
No new TLD helps for the overcrowding, as all owners of trademarks
have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name
by law.
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as
a domain name.
So at best a
ext Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Sure there are. Here's a direct quote from the .mobi proposal:
Businesses and consumers that utilise mobile devices will
be able to take advantage of a wide range of Internet
services and content under the mTLD that have been specifically
The document [1] specify a mode of encryption that has not, to my
knowledge, been used anywhere else: CBC-CTS with IV-carry. The
document does not reference any standard work that define it, so it
appears the document authors are not aware of prior use of it either.
There is no analysis of the
I don't think there was any lack of capability for traction for the earlier proposals,
there just wasn't a surface to grip against. The news (good or bad depending on your
biases) is that the telcos have some larger roles in the Internet now a days.
When it was decided to open up TLDs,
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Markus Stumpf wrote:
No new TLD helps for the overcrowding, as all owners of trademarks
have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name
by law.
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as
a
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:21:20AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
This is -exactly- the tpc.int. model,
the e164.int. model,
the e164.arpa. model...
in a phrase...
This is the sort of thing ISOC should speak out on.
doh! ISOC can't as they are the major benefactor from the .org divestature
from verisign.
sorry, try again.
-rick
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29-apr-04, at 21:18, Tony Hain wrote:
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their
trademark as
a domain name.
IANAL, but in my discussions with lawyers focused on trademark law, in
effect they are required. The perception that they are not defending
their
rights effectively
So, place your bets on which slippery slopes ICANN takes us down...
ICANN loves these sponsored TLDs. It's the only kind they are presently
considering. Sponsors generally have the cash needed to cover ICANN's
application fee (which is typically on the order of $35,000 to $50,000,
and is
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29-apr-04, at 21:18, Tony Hain wrote:
This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their
trademark as
a domain name.
IANAL, but in my discussions with lawyers focused on trademark law, in
effect they are required. The perception that they are
Karl A said:
Anybody who wants a new TLD should have to pledge allegance to the
end-to-end principle (i.e. no new sitefinders) and promise to adhere to
applicable internet technical standards and practices.
Dan K says:
The idea of harvesting bad DNS accesses as a business plan never occured to
be
Hi.
While this discussion on the IETF list has been very
interesting, it is probably worth noting that the odds of ICANN
staff following the IETF list to the extent needed to pull out
this thread and make use of it are not high.
Instructions for making comments that they, and presumably the
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3720
Title: Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI)
Author(s): J. Satran, K. Meth, C. Sapuntzakis,
M. Chadalapaka, E. Zeidner
Status: Standards Track
The IESG has received a request from the Extensible Authentication Protocol WG
to consider the following document:
- 'State Machines for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Peer and
Authenticator '
draft-ietf-eap-statemachine-03.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a
16 matches
Mail list logo
