On 4 May 2015, at 10:25, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> 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. > > This is exactly what needs to be said. I don’t think you can go further > without getting lost in the weeds, and I don’t think it’s necessary— > operators just need to know the distinction isn’t protocol.
Agree. I think the largest issue is: a. Policy in general (how the TLD is approved, registry appointed/redelegated etc) b. Eventual contractual arrangements with ICANN corp paf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
