On 21 Jun 2011, at 00:29, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I will repeat my assertion. There is no such thing as glue records
for the nameservers at the top of the zone within the zone itself
be they in-baliwick or not. Glue records live in the parent zone
and are there to avoid the catch
In message 4dfedb8b.5080...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 06/19/2011 19:31, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
From: Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that ICANN could also have an impact on
* Adam Atkinson:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
It must have been before 1996. Windows environments cannot resolve
A/ records for single-label domain names.
--
Florian Weimer wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
It must have been before 1996. Windows environments cannot resolve
A/ records for single-label domain
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
http://naralo.org
j
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:26 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Jun 20 00:15:32
2011
To: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Subject: Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:14:49 +1000
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Now that the cat is out of the bag, maybe we should look at trying to
get people to make use of FQDN's more.
I just added a rewrite to my person site to give it a try, and threw a
quick note up about it:
http://soucy.org./whydot.php
So far, it looks like every browser correctly respects the use
On 20 Jun 2011, at 02:24, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
furthermore, the internet has more in it than just the web, and i know that
foo@sony. will not have its RHS (sony.) treated as a hierarchical name.
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
There has been an ongoing argument
- Original Message -
From: Tony Finch d...@dotat.at
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
I couldn't believe that, so I went and checked 5322. Tony's right:
there is no way to write an email address which is deterministic,
unless mail servers ignore the DNS search path.
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:43, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
There is also no such thing as in-bailiwick glue for the TLD’s DNS servers.
The root zone contains glue for TLDs. No TLD zone contains glue for TLDs.
In-bailiwick means that the nameservers for a zone are under the apex of that
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
as the elected unaffiliated member representative (or umr) i suppose i
should point out that (a) yes, the structural feature of individual
In message 3da313a7-911e-4439-9082-b50844338...@dotat.at, Tony Finch writes:
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:43, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
=20
There is also no such thing as in-bailiwick glue for the TLD=E2=80=99s DN=
S servers. The root zone contains glue for TLDs. No TLD zone contains glu=
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 20:47, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for
the basic concept of using both FQDNs and
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
randy
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Imagine the typo-squating someone could do with .con.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY
On Jun 19, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Imagine the typo-squating someone could do with .con.
See section 2.2.1.1 (and section
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
The same type that Colombia/NeuStar is doing with .co?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk writes:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
no you need not must be. it would work as long as no dk.this or dk.that
would be found
On Jun 19, 2011, at 11:59 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com said:
Now I'm tempted to be the guy that gets .mail
express that temptation in dollars, and well into two commas.
Imagine the typo-squating someone
In message g339j59ywz@nsa.vix.com, Paul Vixie writes:
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk writes:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
no you need not must be.
Appears to now get you a redirect to https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/
For those arguing that 512+ octet replies don't occur:
baikal:owen (14) ~ % dig @a.nic.dk -t any dk.2011/06/19
17:03:56
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
; DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 @a.nic.dk -t any dk.
;
- Original Message -
From: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk writes:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
no you need not must be.
DK may not be hierarchical, but DK. is. If you try to resolve DK on
it's own, many (most? all?) DNS clients will attach the search string/domain
name of the local system in order to make it a FQDN. The same happens when
you try and resolve a non-existent domain. Such as
alskdiufwfeiuwdr3948dx.com,
In message d066e1c4-cc70-4105-b2ed-a2af9b1b2...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Appears to now get you a redirect to https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/
For those arguing that 512+ octet replies don't occur:
I don't think anyone argues that 512+ octet replies don't occur.
They have occured for as
A surprising number of TLDs have A records. Many are hosts with web
servers, a few are hosts with misconfigured or unconfigured web
servers (ph. and bi.), some don't respond. No TLD has an record,
confirming the theory that nobody actually cares about IPv6.
ac. 193.223.78.210
ai.
In message BANLkTinAZvLc4oQEW5Nq8eTrch=x6hs...@mail.gmail.com, Jeremy writes:
DK may not be hierarchical, but DK. is. If you try to resolve DK on
DK. is NOT a hostname (RFC 952). It is NOT legal in a SMTP transaction.
It is NOT legal in a HTTP header.
it's own, many (most? all?) DNS
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:30:58 -0500
From: Jeremy jba...@gmail.com
DK may not be hierarchical, but DK. is. If you try to resolve DK
on it's own, many (most? all?) DNS clients will attach the search
string/domain name of the local system in order to make it a FQDN. The
same happens when
On 6/19/2011 9:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.
Not to mention the folks of the Redmond persuasion with their
additionally ambiguous \\hostname single names.
(In the absence of a configured search domain, Windows won't even
Vix:
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference
between http://sony/ and http://sony./
The fact that the resolution of sony. is deterministic, and that of
sony is location dependent?
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
In
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.
How?
Regards,
-drc
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:04:09 -1000
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
How?
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that
On 06/19/2011 07:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
From: David Conradd...@virtualized.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:04:09 -1000
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
How?
that's a good
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:08:18AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:04:09 -1000
On Jun 19, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names,
universally.
How?
On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign something
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted parties (e.g., the new gTLDs) do this. A
bit late to get it into the Applicant's Guidebook, but maybe something could be
slipped in
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
From: Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign
something that says i know that my single-label top level domain name
In message 4dfeaef6.70...@mtcc.com, Michael Thomas writes:
Isn't this problem self regulating? If sufficient things break
with a single label, people will stop making themselves
effectively unreachable, right?
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take effect. Remember the protocols we use were designed to
work back when there was only a single flat namespace. Simple
hostnames will appear to work fine for 99.999% of people. It's
just when you get namespace
Mark Andrews wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
DK should NOT be doing this.
Oh, I'm not claiming it does it now. It certainly doesn't.
I _think_ I was shown http://dk in about 1993 or 1994 as
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference between
http://sony/ and http://sony./
Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem unqualified TLD names
might present to web browsers has been around for a
Adam Atkinson wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
DK should NOT be doing this.
Oh, I'm not claiming it does it now. It certainly doesn't.
I should have checked before I wrote that. The _last_
In message 5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0d633...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com, G
eorge Bonser writes:
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take effect. Remember the protocols we use were designed to
work back when there was only a single flat namespace.
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference
between http://sony/ and http://sony./
Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem
On Jun 19, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them
I would agree with this part.
I suspect you underestimate the desires and power of marketing folks at larger
organizations.
Adding
In message 4dfec221.90...@mistral.co.uk, Adam Atkinson writes:
Adam Atkinson wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk,
the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
DK should NOT be doing this.
Oh, I'm not claiming it does it now. It
In message 1bc921a3-c4cd-4fff-9ae5-49c1218d5...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them
I would agree with this part.
I suspect you
Mark Andrews wrote:
_Now_ I get rend up at http://www.dk.com/ if I don't
That's your browser trying to be helpful. If it is Firefox this
can be turned off with about:config and browser.fixup.alternate.enabled
to false. The default is true.
Ah, thanks. I imagined it was FF trying to be
In message 20110620033503.20835.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-). anyway, i don't see the difference between
http://sony/ and http://sony./
Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
as http://dk./ just fine. Whatever problem
I would guess that most of these are going to be purchased simply to
prevent someone else from getting them
I would agree with this part.
and that most of them will never
actually be placed into production.
But not with this part.
Well, I said most, some will likely be placed
On Jun 19, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I'm curious how anyone that has not signed a agreement with ICANN
can be bound to anything in any applicant guide book.
In order to obtain a gTLD, you have to sign a contractual agreement with ICANN.
Also rfp-clean-30may11-en.pdf basically
And your technical solution to ensure http://apple/; always resolves
to apple. and doesn't break people using http://apple/; to reach
http://apple.example.net/; is?
Whatever people have been doing for the past decade to deal with
http://dk/ and http://bi/.
As I think I said in fairly easy to
Really, if you're going to opine on the disasters that will befall ICANN as a
result of the new gTLD program, you might want to actually read what that
program does and doesn't do. Really.
you made my morning dave. thanks for the chuckle!
Adding gtlds and opening up the root to brands effectively requires
TM holders to register/bid to protect their TM rights.
If you had read the applicant handbook, you would know that's not
true.
But I'm glad to see that people are taking my advice and continuing
the traditional uninformed nanog
By the way, the ICANN board just voted to approve the new gTLD program.
Time to place bets on what the next move will be.
My money is on lawsuits by US trademark lawyers.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Please consider the environment
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1106200055140.23...@joyce.lan, John R. Levine wr
ites:
And your technical solution to ensure http://apple/; always resolves
to apple. and doesn't break people using http://apple/; to reach
http://apple.example.net/; is?
Whatever people have been doing for the
On 06/19/2011 19:31, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
From: Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that ICANN could also have an impact on this by having applicants sign
something that says i know that my
In message 83163718-fa5b-47ba-ba50-67701abd5...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I'm curious how anyone that has not signed a agreement with ICANN
can be bound to anything in any applicant guide book. =20
In order to obtain a gTLD,
Mark,
RTFDAG.
Regards,
-drc
On Jun 19, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In order to obtain a gTLD, you have to sign a contractual agreement with =
ICANN.
David, you are missing the point. The TM holder doesn't want the
gtld, they just want to protect their trademark. The TM holder
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of their
customers.
let me just say that if i was making millions of dollars a day
On 06/19/2011 22:47, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of their
customers.
let me just say that if i
The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for
the basic concept of using both FQDNs and Unqualified names.
Well, you know, there's a guy whose email address has been n@ai for
many years. People have varying amounts of success sending him mail.
R's,
John
- Original Message -
From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com
The notion of a single-component FQDN would be quite a breakage for
the basic concept of using both FQDNs and Unqualified names.
Well, you know, there's a guy whose email address has been n@ai for
many years. People have varying
62 matches
Mail list logo
