> -----Original Message----- > From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 9:27 > To: Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> > Cc: dnsop@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ > > > > > On Nov 22, 2019, at 12:20 AM, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> > wrote: > > > > So the intention of the ISO at least is that these codes are used by > users. (I'm not sure what the scary warning means.) Certainly I have > made heavy use of .Q* and .X* in my own testing, with the assumption > that these would never be assigned (and yes, there is .TEST but > sometimes you need more than one one TLD).
Beware of assumptions. I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams for St. Maarten to be assigned SX. > > Right. And in fact, “unassigned” ISO codes _do_ get used, for places > like Kosovo, that are in a state of disputed or partially-recognized > countryhood, and ranges that are reserved for user use really should > be left for that use, because they do in fact get used by users, so any > centrally-coordinated use will run afoul of that. > > Again, this is an argument from principle rather than an argument > based on the specific case at hand. I just think that we have a well- > established precedent that all two-letter TLDs are derived from ISO 3166 > Alpha-2, and it’s bad form to cross back over and start poaching in > their territory. > Agreed. There is a well-established process for assigning country codes. While it might seem a sensible assumption that no country would be assigned these specific cases, it would open up potential conflicts and create a dilemma for newly established countries to either not be able to get the preferred ISO3166 country code or have different country code and TLD. As far as I know, this is also current ICANN policy. Erwin _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
