Closed
Bug 520056
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
Update Effective TLD list for .za.net and .za.org
Categories
(Core :: Networking, defect)
Core
Networking
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.9.3a1
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
status1.9.2 | --- | beta2-fixed |
status1.9.1 | --- | .6-fixed |
People
(Reporter: norman, Assigned: pkasting)
Details
(Keywords: verified1.9.0.16, verified1.9.1)
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
1.07 KB,
patch
|
jst
:
approval1.9.2+
samuel.sidler+old
:
approval1.9.1.6+
samuel.sidler+old
:
approval1.9.0.16+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.24 Safari/532.0 Build Identifier: The effective TLD list does not contain ".za.net" or ".za.org". I have asked the .net and za-nic registrars before (circa Jul'08) if they would include it, but they have not responded. Patch coming shortly. Reproducible: Always
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #404108 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404108 [details] [diff] [review] patch for za-nic I'm not sure these should go here; perhaps they should instead be split into two pieces that go near .net and .org. This is how the CentralNic domain names (e.g. ".se.net") were done.
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
updated patch, re: Peter's comments
Attachment #404108 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #404108 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review] za-nic.patch Remember to re-request review.
Attachment #404157 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #404157 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review-
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review] za-nic.patch We don't accept submissions not from the owner of the domain. If we add someone's domain to the list without their permission and their websites break, that would be really bad. If they don't ask us, we have to assume they are happy with the way things work now. Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review] za-nic.patch That doesn't make sense. You accept submissions from me and Pam. This case is obviously broken today (try actual usage), and there's a registrar with a public policy that backs up the suggested fix. Please rethink.
Attachment #404157 -
Flags: review- → review?(gerv)
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
I'm happy to update the list when someone says "hey, this ICANN-accredited registrar's policy document over here says something different". But adding pseudo-registrars is a different kettle of fish. Think of the trouble it would cause if we added google.com to the list. Now, you may say that people are not running za.net or za.org like google.com. But without asking them, we have no way of knowing what they are doing. Maybe they have valid uses for cookies shared across the whole domain. It's not right for us to break that without their permission. If someone from the owners of za.net and za.org comes in here and says "sure, go right ahead, we've looked at what it'll mean and it's clearly the right thing" (like CentralNIC did) then no problem, let's go. Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
I don't agree, but the fastest way to resolve this would definitely be to get an official reply from the owners. Accordingly, I've emailed the contact address for ZA NiC, and CCed you. Please correct or add to my mail as necessary :)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
Gerv, are you OK with doing this based on the email reply we got? I don't think your final message to the registrar looked like one that needed a further response.
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
We got a reply? It must have gone to my spam folder. Can you give me the message details and I'll dig it out :-) Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•15 years ago
|
||
Ah, checking the mail again, it looks like they replied to me without CCing you. Sorry for not noticing that. I have forwarded you the reply.
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #404157 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
Comment 12•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 404157 [details] [diff] [review] za-nic.patch Please put the email address of the guy who emailed us in the comment (like centralnic). With that change, r=gerv. Gerv
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•15 years ago
|
||
Patch as requested
Assignee: nobody → pkasting
Attachment #404157 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 14•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review] patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14] http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cdebeb90dbd8
Attachment #407115 -
Attachment description: patch w/email address → patch w/email address
[Checkin: Comment 14]
Updated•15 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite-
Keywords: checkin-needed
Hardware: x86 → All
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.3a1
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Comment 15•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review] patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14] Requesting branch approvals. Gerv
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.2?
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.1.5?
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Comment 16•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review] patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14] The only reason we'd want this on the 1.9.0/1.9.1 branches is to stay in sync with 1.9.2 so we'll wait for that to get approved. At this stage in 1.9.2's life-cycle the drivers are not looking at the huge list of non-blocker apprvals so you'll need to bug people on IRC or email to get any notice.
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.1.5?
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.2? → approval1.9.2+
Comment 17•15 years ago
|
||
Checked in on 1.9.2. http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/rev/c37fe45bfce822ed2e4ea141f8ba1b7793aee4db Gerv
status1.9.2:
--- → final-fixed
Comment 18•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review] patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14] Renominating to keep 1.9.1 and 1.9.0 in sync. Gerv
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.1.6?
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Comment 19•15 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 407115 [details] [diff] [review] patch w/email address [Checkin: Comment 14] Approved for 1.9.1.6 and 1.9.0.16. a=ss for release-drivers
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.1.6?
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.1.6+
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.0.16?
Attachment #407115 -
Flags: approval1.9.0.16+
Comment 20•15 years ago
|
||
1.9.0.x: Checking in netwerk/dns/src/effective_tld_names.dat; /cvsroot/mozilla/netwerk/dns/src/effective_tld_names.dat,v <-- effective_tld_names.dat new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11 done 1.9.1.x: http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/b9e65f1a7d7976d408e6fcfea2b570733cebc018 Gerv
status1.9.1:
--- → .7-fixed
Keywords: fixed1.9.0.16
Updated•15 years ago
|
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•