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

["Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com>]

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 TLDsFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Wed Jul  2 23:07:17 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E1E3A6CC1;
	Wed,  2 Jul 2008 23:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3943A6CC1
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Wed,  2 Jul 2008 23:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.103
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=3.196, 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 wfLSreOD50sa for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Wed,  2 Jul 2008 23:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560363A6CC0
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Wed,  2 Jul 2008 23:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KEHyV-0000hZ-64
	for ietf at ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:07:23 +0000
Received: from rain.gmane.org ([80.91.229.7])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:07:23 +0000
Received: from hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz by rain.gmane.org with local
	(Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:07:23 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf at ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:09:48 +0200
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <g4hqah$tia$1 at ger.gmane.org>
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><200807012051.m61KpLeq021685 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><105D288AF30DA6D8EE55976A at p3.JCK.COM><200807021417.m62EHckw017869 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><p0624081cc4915ab876b2 at [10.20.30.162]><Pine.GSO.4.63.0807020927290.12027 at pita.cisco.com><p0624081ec4916d89dfac at [10.20.30.162]>
	<4EE35E6C77E4E012B5755019 at p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet at ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: rain.gmane.org
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at 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.

 Fran.

 Frank
-- 
Repost, apparently my first attempt didn't make it.

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


k
-- 
Repost, apparently my first attempt didn't make it.

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