> >> 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 incl
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 fi
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 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
protoc
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 th
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 13:
>
>
> 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
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 15:01 -0400 William Tan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> To add to your point, one should also consider the question of
> embedded semantics in a single-character label.
>
> Alphabetic scripts such as Latin mostly represent sounds used
> to make up words. While
> 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
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 pr
>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?
>Th
> 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
--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. N
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 histor
>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 name
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
--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.
>
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
> >t
[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 i
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 cor
--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
>>>
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 stuff:
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 stuff:
(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
24 matches
Mail list logo
