IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Mon, 04 May 2015 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B3A1ACDF5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 0BlwSGwulmYR for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BD461ACDD9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:45:09 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:45:09 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHQhhoGnHWC59j2gE6uE5eqjtl2nZ1rvCmAgAAz4QD///WQgA==
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 11:45:09 +0000
Message-ID: <D16CD26A.B53A%edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <D1669A73.B3B8%edward.lewis@icann.org> <20150430143531.GE65861@mx2.yitter.info> <CAKr6gn0+gzgEaJZ3CUud41csUccmYW3qPn5STqxMx8RUmRXn_g@mail.gmail.com> <CFE58ACB-20AD-4D26-9060-E6C92E90221E@frobbit.se> <FFCD172C-5549-4FCE-B086-F89AA442AC39@rfc1035.com> <47D426C6-8911-4CEA-9F95-72145B2D5008@frobbit.se> <07704FFD-5555-4FF5-ACC1-E10EAA15FBC6@virtualized.org> <8F4835A3-4082-4043-AC7A-0644002BECA7@frobbit.se> <C63A8023-5F97-4112-A60C-B5AC4692B12E@virtualized.org> <BE8F07E2-FFCE-48EC-BA09-C2F1A83AB82D@frobbit.se> <20150504082223.GA69623@mx2.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20150504082223.GA69623@mx2.yitter.info>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.235]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3513570303_36678883"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_cGegiL91o_yqjFx9q9wyG_8Sqg>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 04 May 2015 11:45:13 -0000

On 5/4/15, 4:22, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>"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." Or something like that.  Any objection?

My one addition would be to word this such that the division is not just
ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples.  ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
categories;")[0]

For a DNS terminology document, that is all that is needed.  Top-level
Domains, as a black box, are the same to the DNS protocol and operator.

Unless you are running DNS for one or more TLDs. ;)

[0] - Because to others, sTLDs matter, .brand TLDs matter, IDN TLDs
matter, IDN ccTLDs matter... not to DNS protocol matters itself except we
get sidetracked talking about these things.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email