Re: [DNSOP] TLD, ccTLD and gTLD, agreement with the consensus (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt

[Lawrence Conroy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan, Stephane, Andrew, Ed, folks,
 I also prefer Ed Lewis' variant **. 
Enumerating all flavours of TLD would be excessive, but mentioning only gTLDs and ccTLDs -without a hint that there may be other variants- is a false friend, IMHO.
Hence please can we go for the version with "and other categories".
With that tweak the overall text here seems perfect to me, as it specifically excludes discussion of organisation or policy.

all the best
  Lawrence
** I'm biased as I was involved with one, so I have also heard of sTLDs.


On 4 May 2015, at 16:54, Dan York <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Stephane,
> 
>> On May 4, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> I support Andrew Sullivan's version: "TLDs are often divided into
>> ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division is a matter of policy in the root zone,
>> and beyond the scope of this document."
> 
> Would you support Ed Lewis’ modification of that text into this?
> 
>  "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs, gTLDs and other categories; the division is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this document.”
> 
> I agree with the comments on the list that specifying only ccTLDs and gTLDs is later going to leave it open for someone to say that “qTLDs” or whatever are special in a different way and need different treatment, etc.
> 
> The key point here is that from the DNS *protocol* level “TLDs” are what matters.  All the other distinctions of the various types of TLDs don’t (at the current time, anyway) affect how the operations really work.
> 
> My 2 cents,
> Dan
> 
> --
> Dan York
> Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society
> [e-mail]   [phone]
> Jabber: [e-mail] 
> Skype: danyork   http://twitter.com/danyork
> 
> http://www.internetsociety.org/