(very unimportant contribution, please ignore)
any change to this things, must be done in the benefit of future
users, making the internet a less weird place, with less exceptions
everyone else have already learned a .edu domain is probably a USA
university, and some .mil domain is the usa
On October 22, 2014 at 01:25 i...@itechgeek.com (ITechGeek) wrote:
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be
to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us (Much like how other
countries already work).
And of course they'll also keep .GOV and .MIL
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible
solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like
parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc.
No doubt there would be some collisions but
On 10/21/14 8:08 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a
role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to
ensure ICANN does screw the pooch.
Freudian slip, David? :)
Doug
On 10/20/14 10:44 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I’ve had operational issues introduced by *TLD operators and choices they made.
When that happens, report them to ICANN's SSAC. They take the
Stability part of their name seriously.
That said, new TLDs are not going away, so operations needs to take
The fact that you think I'm commenting about you at all is illuminating :)
On 10/20/14 9:52 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you
comment on mine is uninteresting.
-e
On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47
On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible
solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like
parliament.uk.gov or
On 10/21/2014 01:33 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible
solution would be to use the two-letter
On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote:
Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in
the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does
screw the pooch.
I'm thinking there's a not missing here.
For the
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be
to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us (Much like how other
countries already work).
I don't see that happening as long as the US gov has a say in the matter.
I think .su will be decommissioned long before
it was at ietf-9, while jon and i were discussing the {features|flaws}
of iso3166-1, that another contributor approached us and ... spoke to
the unfairness, as argued by that contributor, of the armed forces of
the united kingdom being excluded from the use (as registrants) of the
.mil
On 10/19/14 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
# Gee, someone should alert NANOG management that the list has fallen
# through a wormhole into 1996.
#
On 10/19/14 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
RFC 1591.
Which is circa 1994.
The real answer is that although fed.us is used by some agencies,
the
On Oct 19, 2014 9:53 AM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote:
I'd rather see .gov (and by implication, .edu) usage phased out and
replaced by country-specific domain names (e.g. fed.us).
imo, the better way to fix an anachronism is not to bend the rules so
the offenders are not so offensive,
On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote:
Would love to get any info about the history
of the decision to make it US-only.
incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web
site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has
USGOV decided to open
The name of the game is you create it, you set your own rules. The United
States Gov't was involved w/ the Internet before people thought about it
being more than just a US gov't system.
As far as the SOA, someone probably copied and pasted another SOA not
really knowing what they were doing (or
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org writes:
On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote:
Would love to get any info about the history
of the decision to make it US-only.
incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web
site for the domain looks like it's copied from
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being
able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and
needing to fix static links and testing etc).
You say that like it's a bad thing
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being
able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and
needing to fix static
On 10/20/2014 07:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being
able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and
needing to fix static links and
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Stephen Satchell l...@satchell.net wrote:
On 10/20/2014 07:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being
able to reboot and issues in
On 10/19/14, 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:45:44 -0400, shawn wilson said:
3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with
NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there
any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real
question - why in the hell would we want to do this?
See your point
On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
powers put their government agency
I wish marriages worked like that.. ;)
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net
Date: 10/20/2014 8:13 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/14, 8
On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
[…] and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse.
People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;)
johno
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:07 AM, John Orthoefer j...@direwolf.com wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
[…] and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse.
People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;)
johno
They do use that, of course. But
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 01:07:13PM -0400, John Orthoefer wrote:
People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;)
Hadn't you noticed how bad the reverse mapping maintenance is?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn, Inc.
asulli...@dyn.com
v: +1 603 663 0448
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government
office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to
register only agencies of the US Federal government in this
domain.
No
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US.
And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically
extend/expand the number of TLDs.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote:
By the time of
On 10/19/14 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
powers put their government agency domains?
... I think these questions
On 10/20/2014 17:09, manning bill wrote:
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US.
And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically
extend/expand the number of TLDs.
It appears to this outsider that Postel and others never understood at
all that the sole purpose and destiny
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:45:44 -0400, shawn wilson said:
3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with
NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there
any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the
future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move,
but application-layer stuff will be
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
On 10/19/14 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on
the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
In message CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=f+0bbegow4c5dnjbfzte...@mail.gmail.com
, shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the
future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Well
Spanish speaking countries .gob.$2lettercodecountry. No problem so far.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=f+0bbegow4c5dnjbfzte...@mail.gmail.com
, shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton
On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:09 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs.
Equally, no reason not to.
On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote:
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not.
Jared Mauch
On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
Equally, no reason not to.
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their
expectations aren’t met,
On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
1) things that hard-code a
Jared,
On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not.
Beyond challenges caused by
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en, is there
something new TLDs is breaking? (Serious
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:09:11 -0400, shawn wilson said:
There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that
someone can't communicate with their elected official.
You might want to actually surf over to house.gov and start looking at
how many totally broken pages are there.
In message cah_obiecqfjvgtkr2p-h8pzrrseps7jv9cz-6maqdbpgvpm...@mail.gmail.com
, shawn wilson writes:
On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of
at ietf-9 jon and i discussed the problem solved (scaling of the zone
editor function as the price of network interfaces dropped by orders of
magnitude) by reliance upon iso3166-1, and the problems created by
reliance upon iso3166-1. the economic success of .cat (unique among the
icann 1st and
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's
tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate
namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of
On 10/20/14 4:07 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the
future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Actually it worked really well for IPv6 in USG-space. It also mostly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/20/14 6:30 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
|
| On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
| wrote:
|
| Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”.
|
| Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ.
The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over
management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar.
as i recall,
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you
comment on mine is uninteresting.
-e
On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ.
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible
solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like
parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc.
No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious.
--
-Barry Shein
The World |
On Oct 20, 2014 11:54 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 10/20/14 4:07 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the
usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows
DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff)
On Oct 20, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
1) things that
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the
top-level gtlds
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the
top-level gtlds
Why is the Greek flag always flow at the Olympics as well as the
Olympic and host nation flags? Why is Britain the only country
allowed, under Universal Postal Union regulations to have no national
identification on its stamps used in international mail? Basically, if
you are first, you tend to
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty
now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there
was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was
some heavy lobbying
On 10/19/14 12:42, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Why is the Greek flag always flow at the Olympics as well as the
Olympic and host nation flags? Why is Britain the only country
allowed, under Universal Postal Union regulations to have no national
identification on its stamps used in international
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty
now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there
was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was
some heavy
On 10/19/2014 at 8:13 AM Jimmy Hess wrote:
|[snip]
|So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to
exist
|but a community decision made to require whichever registry will
be
|contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_
|government entities regardless of
you can register .edu if you are a non-us institution as long as you are
accredited by a US recognized organization
Mehmet
On Oct 19, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
But to make a long story
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria
that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I
believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace,
then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on
country; the internet is
On 10/19/2014 06:20 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
But given the choice between rationality and insanity, usually the
process seems to prefer insanity.
Or, alternatively, inertia. I would be like renumbering, only worse,
because so many links would need to be found and updated.
On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty
now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there
was significant
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies? Where do other world
powers put their government agency
On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members
can shed some light on the question--why is the
.gov top level domain only for use by US
government agencies?
RFC 1591.
Where do other world
powers put their government
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:51 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
RFC 1591.
It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.
My how times have changed.
-Jim P.
66 matches
Mail list logo
