Re: 2606bis (was: .local)
"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> Wed, 19 October 2005 14:15 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESEjR-0007fn-CG; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:15:53 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESEjO-0007f8-W8 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:15:51 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19903 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:15:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESEv8-0004yk-5b for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:27:59 -0400
Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1ESEjC-0005a1-J6; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:15:38 -0700
Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20051019160041.03baa110@mail.jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:10:44 +0200
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <C56AABD8019A5267529A992C@scan.jck.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509191647510.23762@internaut.com> <p0620074fbf5509dd070a@[192.168.2.2]> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509192043550.28535@internaut.com> <4333DDFF.8020909@zurich.ibm.com> <4333F545.7619@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4355E8A4.7634@xyzzy.claranet.de> <C56AABD8019A5267529A992C@scan.jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 2606bis (was: .local)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
John, Frank, this draft is dead-ended. But it can seriously hurt the Internet. I questioned Donald about it, obtaining an incomplete response, about the 01.txt version having to take obtained responses in consideration. The management of the IANA name/number issues are out of the IETF reponsibility (RFC 2860, not quoted by Donald's Draft). This issue is extermely sensible a few weeks from the Tunis meeting. If it is a temptative of an individual to interfere in the Internet Governance debate through a confusion over the Government sovereignty, it would be a serious mistake. I suggest we either drop this issue, or we definitly rename ourself UNTF and be embarked in another IETF DoS. I find there are too many of them nowadays, all related to the IANA. jfc 12:07 19/10/2005, John C Klensin wrote: >Frank, I'm going to comment on two of your remarks. My not >commenting on the others does not imply that I agree with you >about them either. > >--On Wednesday, 19 October, 2005 08:33 +0200 Frank Ellermann ><nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: > > >... > > This draft references the informational RfC 1591 as normative. > > So far I thought that 1591 in essence says that the internal > > business of a TLD is, well, its internal business. > >First of all, there are a collection of RFCs that were issued by >the IANA that are, indeed, normative. They aren't IETF >Standards because they weren't produced or ratified by the IETF. >It wasn't considered appropriate to ask the IETF to ratify them. >And they aren't BCPs or the equivalent, first because they >weren't IETF documents and second because there was no such >thing at the time. RFC 1591 is one of those documents. If you >want to think about it that way, what makes it normative is that >the operator of every TLD allocated in the pre-ICANN period >agreed to its provisions, including both the "trustee rule" (see >below) and the obligation to insist that any subdomains it >registered accept the same rules. > >The "internal business" of a TLD is subject to an obligation to >act as a trustee for the global Internet community and to act in >the best interests of that community. In that context, >agreements about naming conventions and protocols that are >reached through a plausible consensus process really are binding >on all TLDs and, indeed, on all domains. Whether the relevant >authority is willing or able to enforce those norms and >agreements is a separate issue: at worst, the norms and >agreements constitute a guideline about good practices. > > >... > > 3.2 prohibits single characters as SLD. What's the technical > > purpose of this prohibition ? It also prohibits two characters > > as SLD unless the government of the corresponding ccTLD, or if > > that doesn't exist the ISO 3166 MA allow it. > >... > >The technical purpose for this long-standing restriction is the >avoidance (or minimization) of false positives. If one has >several characters in a string, the odds are (or were) presumed >to be reasonable that a typing mistake (or something equivalent) >would yield a "no domain" answer. If only one character in a >domain name label is permitted, the assumption was that all such >labels would swiftly be taken and the likelihood would be very >high that a single-character typing error would yield a false >positive. That was considered a problem to be avoided a dozen >years ago. It seems to be that in today's more rapacious >Internet, where "traffic concentration" (i.e., registering >domain names with the express purpose of capturing false >positives for a profit) represents the most profitable activity >in the "names market", it is even more important. > > john > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Stuart Cheshire
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call grenville armitage
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Russ Allbery
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Russ Allbery
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Ned Freed
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Robert Elz
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- .local [Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: .local Frank Ellermann
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bill Manning
- 2606bis (was: .local) Frank Ellermann
- Re: 2606bis (was: .local) John C Klensin
- Re: 2606bis (was: .local) JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: 2606bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: 2606bis Bill Fenner
- Re: 2606bis John C Klensin
- Re: 2606bis JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: 2606bis Brian E Carpenter