On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:16:43AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Note that if we look at the original discussion, my only point is that we > should not claim ccTLDs are only allocated according to ISO 3166, but that > there is freedom to create two letter codes -- and that this has happened. >
I think that claim (which, if true, is I suspect Bad News For ICANN™, but none of my business) is yet another reason to remove the definitions from the document. I still think that defining TLD is useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the sentence, "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? The point of adding this is to give people some clue about these terms when they come across them and to indicate that it's a matter of policy and not protocol. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
