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

From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
To: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy at insensate.co.uk>
Cc: SM <sm at resistor.net>, ietf at ietf.org
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:21:35 +1200
In-reply-to: <F3C56092-CAFD-4FA7-8E1F-2DF53A890154 at insensate.co.uk>
References: <4C0AE13D-4CA6-4989-A6B0-555A014DE464 at multicasttech.com> <74E3E26A-FCFB-45C1-989A-DD7EA5752974 at virtualized.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20080627121824.02c55340 at resistor.net> <A9ACF7FB-BC78-44D9-AA61-4FCACE821677 at virtualized.org> <9486A1E5-864F-4B23-9EBA-697C1A7A7520 at ca.afilias.info> <48655E1F.7010100 at gmail.com> <F3C56092-CAFD-4FA7-8E1F-2DF53A890154 at insensate.co.uk>

Lawrence,

If the IETF designates .example or .local as reserved for technical
reasons under the clause of the IETF/ICANN MoU that I cited, the
game is over. That's why we included that clause in the first place.

    Brian

References:
- Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: SM
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: David Conrad
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Joe Abley
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
  - From: Lawrence Conroy

Prev by Date: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Next by Date: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Previous by thread: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Next by thread: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

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

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.