Bill Fenner wrote:
On 2/20/08, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
have a problem?
John,
Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme
response to me. (Unless the expected answer is A lot)
Bill's
Bill Fenner wrote:
On 2/20/08, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
have a problem?
John,
Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme
response to me. (Unless the expected answer is A lot)
Since a)
My $.02 -- the new list software being used was using a new version
of Mailman that was stripping DKIM signatures out (which will be
fixed in later versions of Mailman). I contacted the support folks with
a config patch to stop doing that and it was implemented a day later.
I'd say that's pretty
I'll agree, too. We had some challenges getting the RUCUS mailing
list up and running and then getting the web archives of the list up
and running but the support folks were great to work with and got
things sorted out rapidly.
Regards,
Dan
On Feb 22, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Michael Thomas
--On Friday, 22 February, 2008 15:17 -0500 Dan York
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll agree, too. We had some challenges getting the RUCUS
mailing list up and running and then getting the web archives
of the list up and running but the support folks were great to
work with and got things
David Conrad wrote:
If you don't think a code should exist, take it up with ISO-3166 MA.
The IAB will do if an RFC tries the stunt to use exceptionally
reserved codes as country codes. And if the ccSNO obsoleted
RFC 1591 and IDP-1 they failed to inform the Internet at large:
John C Klensin wrote:
How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
have a problem?
John,
I haven't been with IETF long enough to witness any earlier secretariat
transitions (if such thing ever happened before). So it is hard for me
to compare. But I don't think for an
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Do not worry, David Conrad, IANA, reads this list and he will
certainly resolve the discrepancy today by renaming the TLD
.uk to .gb.
LOL, is that something they should do with DNAME ? g
I always preferred hmg.gb to
On 2/20/08, John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much more of this will it take before you conclude that we
have a problem?
John,
Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like a very extreme
response to me. (Unless the expected answer is A lot)
During a transition like this,
On Feb 20, 2008 12:23 PM, lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
WTF - why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
[snip!]
This is (if nothing else) a Fenian ploy.
[snip!]
add United Kingdom (UK), you *[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not sure where in your rant you
Hi folk,
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Also, could someone fix the python - it appears to barf now that the
Social is sold out.
[who apparently got the last ticket, but whose colleague now
Hi Folks,
WTF - why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
This is the -Internet- Engineering Task Force. So what the heck is
wrong with UK
(as in the country code TLD of the same name), not to mention the
Country.
This is (if nothing else) a Fenian ploy.
I
Hi -
From: lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:23 AM
Subject: ISO 3166 mandatory?
...
why am I REQUIRED to enter the ISO-3166 code for my country
of residence.
...
Quite right. It should use UN M.49 codes instead
lconroy wrote:
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Tons of forms want this for obscure purposes, if in doubt I pick UM.
The history of UK vs. GB is explained in RFC 3071 - for unrelated
reasons I
Don't worry. This problem effectively no longer occurs. It has
been replaced by the following feature:
(1) The Social event line, which we were never required to fill
in before, especially with a specific number of tickets, in
order to register for IETF, now reads sold out.
(2) When one tries
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The history of UK vs. GB is explained in RFC 3071 - for unrelated
reasons I read it yesterday again.
RFC 3071's comments about the crown dependencies are now obsolete,
since they have been added to ISO 3166. The ISO 3166 FAQ also has
more information
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:23:52PM +,
lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
So what the heck is wrong with UK (as in the country code TLD of the
same name),
It's true that there is a discrepancy between ISO 3166 and the root of
the DNS. Do not worry, David
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:25:17PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
lconroy wrote:
I guess that the IETF Meeting Registration pages are run by/on
behalf of the IETF, and that's where the mandatory code is required.
Tons of forms want this for obscure purposes, if in doubt I pick UM.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:50:10PM -0500,
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
* This ISO 3166 code business, rather than, e.g., a
country name.
While a country name is more intuitive and certainly better for a
general Web site, it seems safe
On Wed Feb 20 20:26:14 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:23:52PM +,
lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 23 lines
which said:
So what the heck is wrong with UK (as in the country code TLD of
the
same name),
It's true that there is a
Hi,
ISO 3166 MA has designated UK as exceptionally reserved. IANA has
permitted the use of codes ISO designates as exceptionally reserved
in ISO-3166 for quite some time (the yellow boxes in the table at
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table)
.
Oh, and I'm not with IANA anymore
On 20 feb 2008, at 21:26, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
So what the heck is wrong with UK (as in the country code TLD of the
same name),
It's true that there is a discrepancy between ISO 3166 and the root of
the DNS. Do not worry, David Conrad, IANA, reads this list and he will
certainly
Tony Finch wrote:
RFC 3071's comments about the crown dependencies are now obsolete
Yes, Debbie fixed this. Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new
exception.
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Do not worry, David Conrad, IANA, reads this list and he will
certainly resolve the discrepancy
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new exception.
ICANN introduced the top-level domain for EU by request of appropriate
entities within the EU.
IANA has permitted the use of codes ISO designates as
exceptionally reserved in
David Conrad wrote:
Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new exception.
ICANN introduced the top-level domain for EU by request
of appropriate entities within the EU.
Yes, one of the exceptionally reserved codes, added to
the AC + UK club of exceptions. That's 5+1-3 exceptions
in
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Neither of those documents needs to be updated since IANA
and ICANN are still using ISO-3166.
When I ask whois.iana.org for CP, DG, EA, FX, IC, or TA it
tells me that there's no such TLD.
Well, yes. They haven't been delegated yet.
David Conrad wrote:
[CP, DG, EA, FX, IC, or TA]
When you do a query against EH (for example) you get a blank
template but when you query against (say) FX, you get not
found. Not sure why this is the case as it is clearly broken.
I'll recommend it get fixed.
They could make it worse if
--On Wednesday, 20 February, 2008 16:30 -0800 David Conrad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Unfortunately IANA introduced EU as a new exception.
ICANN introduced the top-level domain for EU by request of
appropriate entities within
Frank,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
They could make it worse if they add the fantasy island codes.
They who? I doubt ISO-3166 MA will be adding fantasy island codes,
but if they do, IANA is not in a position to deny the creation of TLDs
representing those codes.
John,
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:31 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
FWIW, this is a fairly radical re-interpretation of the policies
IANA followed under RFC 1591 and even of any policy I'm aware of
the ICANN Board having approved.
Given ICANN's board approved the EU delegation and AC and UK were
30 matches
Mail list logo
