On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:
> ... > >> If we changed this to say, "A TLD that is allocated using the UN > >> country list using the the two-letter code from the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 > >> standard [ISO3166]," would that address your concern? > > > > I would be fine with that wording, but it doesn't hint at what "cc" > stands for. Again, Jon Postel used the word "country code" and "country > this" and "country that" quite liberally in RFC 1591. I'm not convinced we > need to step away from that now. > > The “what’s a country” issue is one that we confront constantly, as people > ask us for statistics about Internet bandwidth production, traffic flows, > and yes, even TLDs. There’s just no clean answer. Whether that be the > island of Sint Maarten/Saint-Martin (half constituent country of the > Kingdom of the Netherlands, half overseas collectivity of France) or > Cyprus, mention of which always triggers pro-forma outrage from Turkey. > > I completely agree that we should be clear that “cc” stands for Country > Code, and I think we should defer to ISO for their own definition of ISO > 3166: "ISO 3166 is the International Standard for country codes and codes > for their subdivisions” no matter how inaccurate that actually seems. > Because it’s good enough, and this is a complex issue that we’re not going > to solve, given how many other people have tried and failed. > > "we should be clear that “cc” stands for Country Code" even if that is not technically exact. > But we can acknowledge the complexity, and use some word other than > “country” to describe how the Internet uses these codes. > > For instance, we could refer to domains associated with “geographic > territories,” including both ccTLDs, geographic ngTLDs, and geographic IDN > TLDs. > > -Bill > -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
