[DNSOP] no longer about Re: EU ISO-3166 code (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-01.txt)

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 5/4/15, 7:48, "Andrew Sullivan" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples.  ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
>> categories;")[0]
>
>I'm not opposed to the "and other categories", but the truth is that
>anyone who cares about DNS never hears about those other categories.

FWIW, I've heard of them. ;)

>Even around ICANN policy discussions everything that isn't a ccTLD is
>treated as a subclass of gTLD.

Warning, philosophical content follows.

The reason I see documents skew to uselessness is when they lack the
appropriate level of precision.  Either they don't go far enough or go to
far.  If a document is high-level, then it should shove all detail off
into referenced material.

I suspect the terminology document is not high-level.  It is providing new
material, at least in spots - definitions for terms used that are not
defined elsewhere accessible.  So here, even though the terms of art are
not always in wide-spread use, this is the one place someone seeking a
definition would go.  As far as "consensus" - the document ought to
capture multiple perspectives, not just the "pop culture."

For this reason I feel that it is important to acknowledge that there are
other categories while not enumerating them.  (The roster of categories
may change over time.)  If we don't do this, someone will, in 25 years say
"but RFC 10345 says TLDs are gTLDs and ccTLDs, it doesn't list zTLDs, so
zTLDs are special."