Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Thu, 03 July 2008 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964353A688B; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EE83A6998 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHTLBYesJCet for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C613A66B4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KEBbN-0003hI-A4 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:19:05 +0000
Received: from hmbg-d9b88e39.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:19:05 +0000
Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e39.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:19:05 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:21:31 +0200
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <g4h2cu$ajp$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464@multicasttech.com><74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974@virtualized.org><6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340@resistor.net><A9ACF7FB-BC78-44D9-AA61-4FCACE821677@virtualized.org><9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520@ca.afilias.info><200807012051.m61KpLeq021685@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A@p3.JCK.COM><200807021417.m62EHckw017869@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><p0624081cc4915ab876b2@[10.20.30.162]><Pine.GSO.4.63.0807020927290.12027@pita.cisco.com><p0624081ec4916d89dfac@[10.20.30.162]> <4EE35E6C77E4E012B5755019@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e39.pool.mediaways.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:09:44 -0700
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

John C Klensin wrote:

> http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?

My bastard browser from hell eats http://[208.77.188.166]/

It's certainly no STD 66 URL.  But it won't surprise me if
the URL-bis, charset-bis, net_2.0-bis, MIME-bis, XHTML-bis,
(etc. ad nauseam) effort styling itself as "HTML5" decrees
that this is as it should be based on current practice in
the browser industry.

That would be also the moment where I'd welcome a new TLD 
"6]" just to prove a "subtle" technical point.

> the IETF has a lot of trouble making clear decisions when
> those sorts of politics start to intrude.

So far nobody disagreed with RFC 1123 erratum 1335.  FWIW
that also eliminates "6]" from the list of potential TLDs.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf