On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 02:43:17PM -0400,
Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606,
should be either reserved or blocked.
I have the feeling that it is a recurring question, although I
It seems like additional TLD domains, beyond just the 4 in RFC 2606,
should be either reserved or blocked.
In view of Recommendation 4 in ICANN's new GTLD process document, why
do you think this is necessary?
You have read the report, haven't you?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On 2008-06-29 16:35, SM wrote:
At 16:18 27-06-2008, David Conrad wrote:
A TLD of all numbers would be a real pain to deal with. That is, from
a software parsing perspective, what's the difference between the
domain name 127.0.0.1 and the IP address 127.0.0.1?
The domain name may be
Hi -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: C. M. Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
...
Are you saying that according to RFC 2119 SHOULD means something
different than
Laksminath,
My point was this: if a WG actually missed anything substantial and
that comes out during an IETF last call, and the shepherding AD
agrees, the document gets sent back to the WG. If the shepherding AD
also misses or misjudges, any member of the IESG can send it back to
the WG
Randy Presuhn wrote:
In what universe does that make sense?
...
One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD
open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve
the problem.
These are very distinct senses of the word
Wow. I was
Randy Presuhn wrote:
In what universe does that make sense?
...
One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD
open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve
the problem.
These are very distinct senses of the word
Wow. I was
Hi -
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
...
English is not case sensitive.
Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments
lacking other typographical means,
Dave,
regardless of the original intent of 2119, your belief is inconsistent
with longstanding IETF process. you do not get to retroactively change
the intent of RFCs that have gained consensus and approval.
Keith
Dave Crocker wrote:
Randy Presuhn wrote:
In what universe does that
On Jun 28, 2008, at 9:35 PM, SM wrote:
The domain name may be confused with an IP address. That can be
avoided by not allocating numbers from zero to 255 as TLDs.
You need a bit more than that. Under MacOSX (10.5.3, and I suspect
most BSD derivatives at the very least):
% ping 127.1024
Randy Presuhn wrote:
English is not case sensitive.
Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments
lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining,
or italicization.
Emphasis is not semantics.
Normative intent is semantic.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
I'm suggesting it would be helpful if there were an RFC directing IANA
to establish a registry that contains both labels and rules (e.g, no
all-numeric strings, no strings that start with 0x and contain
hexadecimal values, the string 'xn--', the 2606 strings, etc.) that
specify what
David Conrad wrote:
Would there be the downside to this?
Hi, that's already planned, I'm lazy, here's a copy:
| that will be done in an draft-ietf-idnabis-952bis to nail the
| two RFC 1123 toplabel errata, see the A-label thread(s)
| on the IDNAbis list:
|
|
13 matches
Mail list logo
