Thanks. Minor comments in line below. Steve
On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <j...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: > Not taking a stand on this, but some more remarks on these thoughts. > > Edward Lewis writes: > >> >> On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker" >> <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of st...@shinkuro.com> wrote: >> >>> 3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by >>> the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in the future. Names in >>> this subset may move to subset 7 to become active ccTLDs. Examples: >>> >>> xq >> >> 'pq' is a better example. 'xq' is classified as User Assigned, which >> means it has been assigned for use by anyone for their own purposes. 'pq' >> is (using Wikipedia's term) unassigned. > > Indeed. The complete user assigned set is: > > AA, QM-QZ, XA-XZ and ZZ > > For the alpha 3-code the complete user assigned set is: > > AAA-AAZ, QMA-QZZ, XAA-XZZZ and ZZA to ZZZ > > so one could argue that the delegations for TLD xyz (and maybe xxx) is > a actually against the rules in ICANN’s Application Guide Book. It’s my understanding that only the two character codes are included in the relationship between DNS top level names and ISO 3166-1. Three letter codes aren’t included, so there’s no conflict. >> In recognition of this, though, I'd lump all of the alpha-2 codes >> ([A-Z][A-Z]) into category 3, and call it informally "being at the mercy >> of the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency." > > But given that they can be freely used, one could consider them as > candidates for non-TLD use in the name space. Hmm… Maybe. Seems like a bad idea, though. >>> 4. (IETF) Names the IETF has formally recognized as reserved for >>> particular non-DNS uses. Names in this subset are effectively permanent. >>> (=E2=80=9CEffectively permanent=E2=80=9D means they are expected to remain >>> in this >>> subset forever and there is no defined process for changing the status of >>> names in this subset.) Examples: >>> >>> example, local >> >> (Left in for the discussion later in this message.) >> >>> 7. (ICANN) ccTLDs, both Latin and IDN. Names in this subset are expected >>> to last indefinitely. If they are taken out of service they move to >>> subset 8. Examples: >>> >>> jp, uk, na, xn--fzc2c9e2c >> > > I would recommend to not use UK as an example in this discussion. If I > remember correctly, the use as a TLD stems from the time before the > iso alpha-2 codes got adopted as TLDs. Well, I know there is controversy over some of the two letter codes, particularly UK, SU and EU, but it seems to me they are in full use and treated as ccTLDs. > >> The quirk I have here is the IDN Fast Track >> [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en] and >> trying to anticipate what names will be in that. The Latin ccTLD codes I >> can anticipate from category 3 above. But the IDN ccTLD names aren't >> distinguishable from other IDN names without consulting the Fast Track and >> even so, well I'll put this under - I don't understand if a name coming >> through the Fast Track might also be on a generic TLD track. > > As far as I know, the Fast-Track IDN process uses the ISO standard to > see whether the requested name can be applied as ccTLD. so something like > Scandinavia will drop because because there is no ISO code for the > corresponding country or (administrative) territory. This comment applies to whether a particular name is permitted to move from one subset to another. I don’t think it’s necessary to include the rules for moving, just what subsets names can be in. > >> >> As far as I know, if the Fask Track the only source of IDN ccTLD names? >> >>> 8. (ICANN) Previously used TLDs that have been taken out of service. >>> Names in this subset must remain out of service for a very long time, >>> currently estimated at 50 years, to avoid unintended consequences. >>> Examples: >>> >>> cs > > CS has been used twice by ISO 3166. It is now in the 50 year cool-off period. > >> >> Perhaps there's an 8-1/2: I've been told that the 11 IDN test TLDs which >> have been rescinded (NS records removed) are eligible to be reinstated if >> needed for further testing. "I've been told" means that I have never seen >> this in print and thus have no citation to give. See my reply to Ed Lewis re a possible additional subset for names that have appeared at the root with some frequency but might subside > And there are other cases; Official assigned by ISO but not used as > TLD (um comes to mind). It seems to me that UM did appear in the root and then was taken out of service. I doubt we’d want to see it assigned to another country or territory in the near future. I’d put it in subset 8 unless it were brought back to life in the service of the same territory it had been used for before. Steve > > > jaap _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
