I think I could have been clearer with my message. It wasn't intended as
either a criticism of the ietf list management (in fact, I use precisely the
same anti-spam technique) or a request for help with configuration of my
mailservers (I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but usually I
(That draft would basically be a BCP, cc'd to v6ops where this belongs)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I could have been clearer with my message.[..]
Instead, I was presenting what I thought was an interesting example of a
subtle problem that can come up in ipv6 deployment.
I think it is
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being
implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being
implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address,
2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not explicitly
configured on
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[..]
Which (autoconfig) you should either not be using on servers,
or you should be configuring your software properly to
select the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I could have been clearer with my message. It wasn't intended as
either a criticism of the ietf list management (in fact, I use precisely the
same anti-spam technique) or a request for help with configuration of my
mailservers (I may not be the sharpest knife
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:53:41AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Now I know different. Just enabling ipv6 on an otherwise correctly
configured and functioning ipv4 box *will* cause damage -- it will cause
mail
that would have been delivered to not be delivered. I could be wrong, but
this
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 09:14 +1000 Mark Andrews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
The Internet went to multi-label hostnames ~20 years ago.
As noted in RFC 2821 as one dot required syntax, also
mentioned in RFC 3696. Recently *overruled* by 2821bis.
There is
There is a difference between allowing protocol to be used
in a local only mode (single label) and a global mode
(multi-label) and saying you must support single label in
a global context.
If a protocol is used in a global mode, the problem with trying to
Single label names are local in scope. Attempting to use
them in a global context does not work. As the names in
. get more interesting the probability of collisions with
existing names goes up. Not many people choose two letter
labels for the least significant parts of their host names
Vint,
In the ASCII space, there have been three explanations offered
historically for the one-character prohibition on top and
second-level domains. I've written variations on this note
several times, so will just try to summarize here. Of the
three, the first of these is at best of only
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:49 -0700 Bernard Aboba
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Single label names are local in scope. Attempting to use
them in a global context does not work. As the names in
. get more interesting the probability of collisions with
existing names goes up. Not many
Not really. ICANN isn't selling single-label domains. They
are selling (and I believe selling is probably now the correct
term) plain, ordinary, TLD delegations. If I get one of those
and populate the TLD zone only with delegation records, there
are no problems with what ICANN has done at
Is generic buyer beware disclaimer really sufficient here?
The cost to get a domain from ICANN under the new rules is estimated
to be about $100,000. Don't you think we can assume that people who
are laying out that kind of money are big boys and girls who will do
adequate due diligence?
The
John Levine wrote:
The problem isn't just inability to use -- it's that other parties
exist who may claim the usage right, and provide citations to RFCs to
back up their claim.
There are several ICANN documents describing the new process that
include a set of recommendations to guide the
So the problem isn't whether some string not listed in 2606
can be allocated, it is how it is used after it is allocated.
And _that_ situation has a lot more to do about buyer beware
and understanding of conflicting expectations about use than it
does about ownership.
john
I
John Levine wrote:
The problem isn't just inability to use -- it's that other parties
exist who may claim the usage right, and provide citations to RFCs to
back up their claim.
There are several ICANN documents describing the new process that
include a set of recommendations to
Bernard,
I'm going to try to respond to both your note and Mark's, using
yours as a base because it better reflects my perspective.
Before I go on, I think the three of us are in agreement about
the situation. The question is what can (or should) be done
about it.
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008
I feel that Edmon's report of the ICANN/GNSO point of view and the
positions of James Seng are shared by most of the groups we relate
with (Internet @large, open roots, ISO lobbies, Multilinc, MINC,
Eurolinc, ISOC France, ccTLDs, etc.). If this WG does not think they
are technically adequate
John C Klensin wrote:
I'm going to try to respond to both your note and Mark's, using
yours as a base because it better reflects my perspective.
I sense that many of your concerns are well grounded. And I find it
interesting that the concerns come not so much from DNS as a system and
No. 4 says Strings must not cause any technical instability. which
sounds exactly within IETF scope covers the gist of the technical
aspects of the ietf list discussion.
We need cannot be used in a manner that causes technical
instablitity. Known causes include, but are not
John Levine wrote:
The cost to get a domain from ICANN under the new rules is
estimated to be about $100,000. Don't you think we can assume
that people who are laying out that kind of money are big boys
and girls who will do adequate due diligence?
How could their money help them to find
No. 4 says Strings must not cause any technical instability. which
sounds exactly within IETF scope covers the gist of the technical
aspects of the ietf list discussion.
We need cannot be used in a manner that causes technical
instablitity. Known causes include, but are not
The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG
(ippm) to consider the following document:
- 'Information Model and XML Data Model for Traceroute Measurements '
draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This is the second IETF last call for this
25 matches
Mail list logo
