On 5/11/06, Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
And _that_ is *precisely* why not. grin
There have been at least three generations of proposals for
On Friday 12 May 2006 23:47, Barry Shein wrote:
The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just
because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so
many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had
some weight in there too.
But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a
simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash
system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal.
Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't
possible,
given
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a
simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash
system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal.
Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Dambier) [Mon 15 May 2006, 11:11 CEST]:
Both Rendezvous and Bonjour are working.
They are the same thing. Rendezvous got renamed Bonjour after a
trademark dispute. See http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=891
There is an incompatible version from
On Fri, 12 May 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org.
omg that is is super internet lols. seriously, best ns evar.
thx for the giggles.
[EMAIL
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Let's not go
At 02:22 AM 5/12/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will
recall that we actually HAD a hostname file
On May 11, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask,
why does it matter if
you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need
to know about them
via key words and ip-addrs, NAT's and all?
It's all about
On May 11, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask,
why does it matter if you have a domain name if a directory can
hold everything you need to know about them via key words and ip-
addrs, NAT's and all?
I think there is a
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
that we actually HAD a hostname file
On 5/11/06, Derek J. Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to
sell you providing access to Manhattan island.
Derek, I could use your little bridge for our garden, but I am afraid
I cannot pay for it :)
Todd Vierling wrote:
I'll
Why have a TLD when for most of the world:
www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM
www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM
www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM
Not all organizations simply FORWARD sites.
At different times I have used www.google.com,
On 12-May-2006, at 01:17, Martin Hannigan wrote:
At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial,
Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction
How are you
earlier i wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
earlier i wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to
clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X
number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names
without a TLD.
Steve Gibbard wrote:
Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.
The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on
organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local
Steve Gibbard wrote:
...
Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.
The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on
organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in
On 5/12/06, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains
from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering
domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority
and allow for multiple regional
Fred Baker wrote:
Now, as to ccTLDs vs gTLDs, if anyone wants to eliminate one or the
other they get my vote.
The political reality is that ccTLDs will never go away. The business
reality is that gTLDs (at least the majority of the ones we have now) will
never go away. So, can we move on to
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Steve Gibbard wrote:
price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For
gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars,
Maybe.
at prices that are set for
Americans,
Maybe.
and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive
and flaky
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load
On 5/12/06, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical
What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; DiG 9.3.2 ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2,
On May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
No it doesn't, see below:
dig ns xxx @g.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com
; DiG 9.2.1 ns xxx @10.24.0.7
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode:
On May 12, 2006 at 16:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added
On May 12, 2006 at 18:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
On 5/12/06, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by
...
use. Hunt down BU joins the internet, a typo in our initial update
tickled a bug in the bsd hosttable program which brought down about
2/3 of the internet (yes, down.) I can't say I'm proud of that, but
it's kind of hard to forget.
i overflowed the core routers, summer '88. That was good
anything useful to the debate.
- Original Message -
From: Warren Kumari [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Palmer (NANOG Acct) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400
From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Begin forwarded message:
As reported in:
Why?
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
william(at)elan.net wrote:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 11
Why?
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
Because once you separate them out, the government is free to slap a tax on
.xxx websites.
Geo.
Well,
It is always the same thing with this type of thread...
Lets try to expand beyond the obvious shall we?
Francisco Obispo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Legislate where?..in the US ? in Canada ? Venezuela ? in Colombia? in
Brazil ? .
What is
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 12:41:20 2006
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 -0400
From: Alain Hebert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400
From: David
On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said:
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What standard of porn
do you intend to enforce?
Thus spake Alain Hebert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why?
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else
than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
And exactly which legislature has the authority to prevent porn sites
registering in any other
Also, who is to say what is offensive or dangerous to
children? You don't seriously think that only pr0n would be
forced into the .xxx TLD, do you?
(Aactually, it's pretty funny that anyone in their right mind
would expect this happen anyway.)
I can also see cases where someone's blog get's
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:57:36 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_,
registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With
big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended
up costing the registrar
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities
and the
On Thu, 11 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said:
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What
So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission
in balkan namespace :)
; DiG 9.1.3 -t any XXX @TLD2.NEWDOTNET.NET
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34062
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY:
On May 11, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:
So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another
collission
in balkan namespace :)
Thankyou ICANN for your continued support of alternative roots.
If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to
sell you
At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial,
Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's
riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of
On 5/11/06, Derek J. Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:
So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission
in balkan namespace :)
If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to
sell you providing
Why?
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
The major problem with this is that many other governments have
dangerous
ideas that they'd also like to be easily able to identify
David Schwartz wrote:
The major problem with this is that many other governments have
dangerous
ideas that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
Democracy? Why can't Russia corral advocates
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will
recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
At 11:42 PM 5/11/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
The major problem with this is that many other governments
have dangerous
ideas that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
50 matches
Mail list logo
