IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ

"Erwin Lansing" <erwin@lansing.dk> Fri, 22 November 2019 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <erwin@lansing.dk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05B11202A0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lansing.dk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-0nPT7JFtUI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:46:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.droso.net (sloth.droso.dk [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc2:41:216:3eff:fe4d:cf5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A81C012018B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:46:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ELALTT470s (unknown [IPv6:2a01:630:0:81:1::102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.droso.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 212C54027D; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:46:14 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lansing.dk; s=lansing.dk-20160916; t=1574412374; bh=d7JnrwbUAYlKgR8K34Ed4jjr7vqm8jVPuqdypwac5bg=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=FtGK/jQRBZ/JTBH3rdr6dWHqywDNbpBqUslMKsx2j4HSSataOu2r00AJKZfo4LNLq RNrbhFdBT/K6pBdJa0ZBDba+RBp47EgpZMiXimcaWdxYYczHZuFfxduWBjEPcuubDM IOn+T6aigATgiV3JlPogWxv6iXdnZOzaoB6ROozTjGiDXZdGXNA4g/R4vaXQAL9sKX xX6s3mG/sibF8cAxFtnYVbF45iovGRbwI/G+6Ys/G7qRzgSIFZDFtC/nuhjLOpFzsw LuxvIxighhMEKIPJkqs5ehO9TFXfMJhAOfbXtvxLmQetBFaW0BXqJncbvVdh3NGCye x2fBuYEgY1bjg==
From: Erwin Lansing <erwin@lansing.dk>
To: 'Bill Woodcock' <woody@pch.net>, 'Shane Kerr' <shane@time-travellers.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAHXf=0pOVM_MHypgL7uV88242ciBUXGpx6waUetxBbZhvth1gA@mail.gmail.com> <35F0456A-2BA5-4021-AA9D-A86889E74AE6@nohats.ca> <8a5833d5-192f-fdbf-2862-e3f144be80cc@nic.cz> <CAH1iCirfeaD5pJ1_Tm5PaATQ9_zmrj2PbSnPGyL8z40L-_z3nw@mail.gmail.com> <D7475E63-1047-4622-B7EE-DEEA1A891825@pch.net> <f4d32eb9-c073-463f-1914-bdc62ec372bf@time-travellers.org> <92EF6592-8801-4E58-B893-DDCF4F68934F@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <92EF6592-8801-4E58-B893-DDCF4F68934F@pch.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:46:13 +0100
Message-ID: <05f101d5a111$4c32c7d0$e4985770$@lansing.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQGYRGdF2WrQBNU1Jd59RO0Pj30NiQHIp9BAAnwgs9kCI27gTgKT/CZPAbpXmo8BBCF6saezwX4g
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QI7f9Lgo7aY6t52_VQg48QB0JEE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:46:19 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: DNSOP <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 9:27
> To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ
> 
> 
> 
> > On Nov 22, 2019, at 12:20 AM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > So the intention of the ISO at least is that these codes are used by
> users. (I'm not sure what the scary warning means.) Certainly I have
> made heavy use of .Q* and .X* in my own testing, with the assumption
> that these would never be assigned (and yes, there is .TEST but
> sometimes you need more than one one TLD).

Beware of assumptions. I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams for St. Maarten to be assigned SX.
> 
> Right.  And in fact, “unassigned” ISO codes _do_ get used, for places
> like Kosovo, that are in a state of disputed or partially-recognized
> countryhood, and ranges that are reserved for user use really should
> be left for that use, because they do in fact get used by users, so any
> centrally-coordinated use will run afoul of that.
> 
> Again, this is an argument from principle rather than an argument
> based on the specific case at hand.  I just think that we have a well-
> established precedent that all two-letter TLDs are derived from ISO 3166
> Alpha-2, and it’s bad form to cross back over and start poaching in
> their territory.
> 
Agreed. There is a well-established process for assigning country codes. While it might seem a sensible assumption that no country would be assigned these specific cases, it would open up potential conflicts and create a dilemma for newly established countries to either not be able to get the preferred ISO3166 country code or have  different country code and TLD. As far as I know, this is also current ICANN policy.

Erwin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email