> On 22 Nov 2019, at 16:26, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 22, 2019, at 12:20 AM, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote: >> "User-assigned codes - If users need code elements to represent country >> names not included in ISO 3166-1, the series of letters AA, QM to QZ, XA to >> XZ, and ZZ, and the series AAA to AAZ, QMA to QZZ, XAA to XZZ, and ZZA to >> ZZZ respectively, and the series of numbers 900 to 999 are available. >> NOTE: Please be advised that the above series of codes are not universal, >> those code elements are not compatible between different entities." >> >> 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). > > 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.
The ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency is not able to assign any code from the User Assigned range. That is why organisations such as UNLOCODE, WIPO, ICAO, IATA, Worldbank, Interpol, CAB/Forum, UNICODE use these User Assigned codes when they’re using ISO3166. Even IETF and other ISO standards are using the User Assigned range exactly as intended. > 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. And this proposal is following that precedent to the letter. Two-letter codes are derived from ISO 3166 Alpha-2, and that standard says that ZZ is intended for Users, and is out of scope for the 3166 Maintenance Agency. It needs an ISO TC46 action to re-classify the User Assigned range, which has not happened in the 45 years that this standard is used. ZZ is not assigned. We’re not asking for ZZ to be delegated. ZZ will not be delegated because ZZ is on the user assigned list. I don’t know how to make it more clear than that. Roy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
