Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

Warren Kumari <> Thu, 29 September 2016 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F181E12B141 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tIVlPJgbKkBx for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9ADF12B4BD for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n189so8510607qke.0 for <>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FPgUsXHYEQOVGLk9t8Trnr6/utDV1CsBbDp5u59KNbA=; b=ZpYqZXpeO/CRdKVO5KC6+P/n3DScr63y5aH9r1zNvDujg2Vsb5i28LRh0xT5oOgfYM N2igcbtvSb7dzHzSQSTb7IWS70FgYfTdQojWShSeYtMt5AE/tX7gmhB5TFbdWjVoJ0Pk xtG/MupSvKccMMyItvF6jxgbNbPYD+T8ozqCTu/6RdRoh9J4oHTac3kQmMzcwMXRw3GA qXlQGX3Gi8n1pNc1eaz21FNIfXKtG0FoNSaWUFIx8WE4wxTAeNZOmQ3/F8Kw77oiB5k4 Wc4dpgaiD9rf0V9H6FmZWgUaGuwgVc3X9Z/STXmfOkZ/f/e6QSzDvqP1uwWFpAiGUa0f y7BQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FPgUsXHYEQOVGLk9t8Trnr6/utDV1CsBbDp5u59KNbA=; b=OsFrM52RC6qwVljWaPm3h4NDY2TdPKKLQR5+MHTFKZmKCnsPkimTtL1hjcZogWghPX abnxgziDTE8b6Ngu5RnYuXjAXOOzCnoq1TslRcumkItnFkGIckzs30ENBzYSlAbpHJwW UBCp8y11/85BrjvaYZCuZC9wzB27JF09LJ1NE5aRr5SeilrZ8irBhjS1V8oQk79bRW+0 Kk/Plk3GB927+D/yS3aiRrg16Z8BcjbBRaVt8SsbQYDNhILkhAZ260YtPGgHDEioqIda YZ4aCITwyMqh0IZzhMFS404BC5DtsM2awJinWW5gya1sF4hSgxkNNtXiV+QBeSjcgoSO jg8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmySKXb5GCVPNKmfSS9g7zMulHdb619MXWGo1iIEdWhsUq0K7sVSNBsiiBWxSEMFvqnWi4xsrdqGyfVoDr6
X-Received: by with SMTP id z3mr2237105qkd.321.1475165051648; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160928232720.9513.qmail@ary.lan> <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:03:41 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Edward Lewis <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, John Levine <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:05:07 -0000

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Edward Lewis <> wrote:
> On 9/29/16, 03:27, "DNSOP on behalf of John Levine" < on behalf of> wrote:
>> Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that XA-XZ be made private use and the rest future use, but as far as I can tell it never went anywhere.
> I'd been waiting for anyone else to show an interest in it before spending any time on it.  This is the first mention I've seen on a public list about the draft. ;)
> As David wrote in a later message, the dam burst on Special Use Domain Name registry discussions.
>>I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely ever to collide with a real DNS name.  Am I right?
> I'd have to say not right to be "telling people".  The one option you have is ".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy) I don't have a better suggestion.

I (and a few others) had considered writing a document requesting that
.internal be reserved according to 6761, but:
A: that process is currently closed and we were asked to not make any
new suggestions until (at least) the SUN problem statement was adopted
B: it was unclear why a whole separate draft was needed and not just
add some text to draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld, saying .alt for alternate
name resolutions and .internal for names which use the DNS, but are
not part of the global DNS space
C: why not just use .alt for this? It is clear that these should not
hit the global DNS, and should fail (get NXD) if they do. It is
clearly different to a ccTLD (at least some users have learnt that
things of the form .xx are "countries" - lets not confuse them

> Heuristically, you might be okay using these codes but it's that same-old-same-old problem of assuming the future.  My preference would be to put the appropriate codes in to the Special Use Domain Name registry before "telling people".  I stress the "telling people" because you using ".qy" isn't ever going to come to harm (because you can change that "if").
> BTW, the user assigned two-letter codes are not the same as unassigned codes. These have been expressly set aside for local use, these codes aren't eligible for use in any other way, no matter what a new region might call itself.  That is, it's more likely some other novel use for one of these codes might be found than the code ever matching an economy's identifier.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.