> > I believe that this note should have been CCed to this mail list. I
> > believe this action is of general interest.
> >
> Do you want me to forward this to the NANOG list?
I don't see that as necessary (though certainly not harmful). I don't
think anyone is chomping at the bit for these...
On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:48 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
On the other hand, if one is going to have a network in which all
resources are publicly available and unambiguous without prior
negotiations between each client and server and in which one
doesn't want to allow the time and resources for
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:16:33 -0500
Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that this note should have been CCed to this mail list. I
> believe this action is of general interest.
>
Do you want me to forward this to the NANOG list?
>
>
> >To: IANA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: IESG S
I believe that this note should have been CCed to this mail list. I
believe this action is of general interest.
Russ
To: IANA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: IESG Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:56:13 -0500
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the A
The Chinese government administers a state with the worlds largest population,
fourth largest land area, fourth to second largest GDP depending on measure.
The fact that it is not completely nuts for one of the top five world powers to
do a thing does not mean that it is not completely nuts for
John Levine wrote:
If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like this,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
"CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the same part of
the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing operators would preserve a
single consistent namespace by issuing names out of a common, shared
pool. In the presence of conflicting or inconsistent recor
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 24 November, 2006 10:30 -0500 Eric Burger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Or, the reality that with (at the time) a single dominant
network provider made the inter-networking point moot.
Eric, you are being a little cryptic, perhaps unintentionally.
What do you
Hi,
Let me expand on how DNSSEC coupled with a cooperative, p2p architecture
for DNS can help enable competition among TLDs. The short summary is:
- CoDoNS+DNSSEC enable any server to securely serve any name,
which makes it possible, should the community decide to
pursue it, t
Oops - I forgot about that one. Yes the Chinese Ministry of Information
and Industry have many chinese top level domains registered. The are
now the largest alternative root system on the planet next to icann and
resolve for some 150 million users. And i anticipate they will soon
surpass tha
John Levine wrote:
If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like this, I r
>If they can suck down all the top level zone files then it is easy
>for them to publish an ALTERNATIVE DNS VIEW that contains their own
>additions. Anyone who uses their view will then see the so-called
>official DNS info as well as the overlay.
When I see claims like this, I really have to wonde
--On Monday, 27 November, 2006 12:44 +0100 Patrick Vande Walle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
>
>> Hmmm, "Reliable answers" and "multiple registries for the
>> same TLD" in the same sentence?
>>
>> Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That im
> From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/beehive/codons-sigcomm04/
node15.html
>
> "CoDoNS enables multiple namespace operators to manage the
> same part of the name hierarchy [...] Ideally, competing
> operators would preserve a singl
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
Hmmm, "Reliable answers" and "multiple registries for the same TLD" in
the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That implies that there
is no coherency, which I interpret as not being reliable.
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote, On 27/11/2006 11:27:
> Hmmm, "Reliable answers" and "multiple registries for the same TLD" in
> the same sentence?
>
> Multiple registries imply multiple namespaces. That implies that there
> is no coherency, which I interpret as not being reliable.
From
http://www.cs.corn
> > DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
> Not sure I understand your point. You query a record, you get an answer.
> Why on earth would you want to suck all the world's zone files ?
Some people want to publish their own Domain Naming Service
with additional information
On 27Nov 2006, at 10:58 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
return reliable answers to
queries, it should also make it possible to have multiple
registries for
the same TLD
Hmmm, "Reliable answers" and "multiple registries for the same TLD"
in the same sentence?
Multiple registries imply m
Peter Dambier wrote, On 23/11/2006 19:01:
> DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
> > DNS is no longer about publishing information about hostnames and numbers
> but about keeping this information a seecret.
Not sure I understand your point. You query a record, you get an
19 matches
Mail list logo
