Subject: [dnsext] Increasing character limit for registration in internet domain names: 76 or 68 or 91 or 83 or 64 higher the better

From: Krishna Birth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:48:10 +0000

After I had posted yesterday the following on the [email-masked] mailing
list, I was requested in an email to myself to put it also to this specific
mailing list for discussion:

(please view this email with UTF-8 enabled on your viewer)

This is a request for internet engineers to increase the character limit for
registration in the various internet domain names (com, net, org, info etc)
from 63 characters to more at least 76 or 68 or 91 or 83 or 64, the higher
it is the better.  I believe the raising the characters on the internet
domain names will [be] very good from a spiritual perspective.  I base these
figures on the spiritual prayer and chant:

harekrishnaharekrishnakrishnakrishnahareharehareramahareramaramaramaharehare
= 76 characters

harekrsnaharekrsnakrsnakrsnahareharehareramahareramaramaramaharehare = 68
characters

hare-krishna-hare-krishna-krishna-krishna-hare-hare-hare-rama-hare-rama-rama-rama-hare-hare
= 91 characters

hare-krsna-hare-krsna-krsna-krsna-hare-hare-hare-rama-hare-rama-rama-rama-hare-hare
= 83 characters

harekrsnaharekrsnakrsnakrsnahareharehareramhareramramramharehare = 64
characters

It would allow the Hare कrishna Mahamantra, the great prayer for deliverance
in this Age to be fully put on an internet domain name.  The chanting and
recitation of the Mahamantra cleanses the heart of the impurities and
pollution.  Caitanya Mahaprabhu and incarnation of कrishna, the Supreme
Personality of Godhead Movement, popularised the chanting of the Mahamantra
some 500 years ago and is meant for every town and village in the world.

Now His Divine Grace A C Bhaकtivedanta Swami  Prabhupada, Founder, Eternal
Diकsa and Siकsa Spiritual Master of the Hare कrishna Movement in the chain
of disciplic succession has popularised it in the West and continues to
popularise.

p.s. Some time ago I posted on the IETF mailing list via another email
account.

Best,

Meeकu
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Matthew Dempsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:18:19 -0800

> mailing list for discussion:

Try twitter.com instead.  They already support messages up to 140 characters.

HTH

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:44:06 +0000

> figures on the spiritual prayer and chant:

Something similar has already been tried: extended label types, as
described in RFCs 2671 and 2673.

I wasn't really around when the failure of this experiment was
recognized.  Is there a write-up somewhere explaining why this doesn't
work as expected?  (Without major protocol surgery, increasing the
label length would share a similar fate.)

-- 
Florian Weimer                <[email-masked]>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:30:55 +0000

> From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:44:06 +0000
> 

no writeup. briefly, it only works if the full end-to-end path knows
about each new label type. so adding each label type would require 
incrementing the EDNS version number. this was found to be impractical.
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:55:35 +0000

> incrementing the EDNS version number. this was found to be impractical.

And "full path" has two meanings here, both the forwarders to the
authoritative server, and the delegation path from the root to the
authoritative servers.  If no server is known for a particular
subtree, the full QNAME is sent to the roots, then to the applicable
TLD servers etc., so all your parents need to support such an
extension before you can use it in your zone.

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:28:43 -0500

On 18/01/2011 9:30 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> From: Florian Weimer<[email-masked]>

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-04#section-5

Olafur

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:55:04 -0400

Hi, Krishna,

An "internet domain name" is also known as a "fully qualified domain
name", or FQDN.

An FQDN can be up to 255 characters in length. The limit of 63
characters is on the individual components of that name, or "labels".

Breaking up the prayer words with hyphens between words, and "."
between phrases, works nicely, without changing the current limits:

"hare-krishna.hare-krishna.krishna-krishna.hare-hare.hare-rama.hare-rama.rama-rama.hare-hare"

which would probably need to be underneath hare-krishna.org or
something suitable, like:

hare-krishna.hare-krishna.krishna-krishna.hare-hare.hare-rama.hare-rama.rama-rama.hare-hare.hare-krishna.org.

You're welcome,

Brian

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:51:59 +1100

> incrementing the EDNS version number. this was found to be impractical.

The problem is worse than that.  All the parent server need to be
able to parse the QNAME to be able to issue a referral.  You can't
find the OPT record to do EDNS version processing.

I don't know why we are talking about this at all.   I've see no
evidence that 63 characters is not enough space for any label people
are likely to be typing in even with IDN.

this-is-a-very-long-hostname-that-I-would-never-use-in-practice.isc.org

An entire sentence is encoded in that label.

If you need to encode longer sentences into labels for a database
stored in the DNS then I suggest that you use a cryptographic hash,
base32 encode the result and do collision detection.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext