> On 22 Nov 2019, at 21:15, Matthew Pounsett <m...@conundrum.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 05:16, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <e...@lisse.na> wrote: > > If users need code elements to represent country names not included > in this part of ISO 3166, the series of letters AA, QM to QZ, XA to > XZ, and ZZ [...] are available. > > I read that to mean that a .ZZ (or rather any of the 42 possibles) would > be safe to use in our context. > > I read that to mean they are reserved for private use, and as mentioned > above, any centralized/standardized use is going to conflict with that.
No. No one is suggesting centralised use! The opposite. You can use it locally because there is no centralised use. > This is a bit like IANA trying to assign a bit of RFC1918 space to > something specific and global. No. Not at all. There is no ask here of IANA. ZZ is not to be delegated. At All. No one is re-assigning anything. Using your analogy, there should not be an RFC1918 because it “standardizes” that 10/0 (etc) can be used for private internets. > I'm surprised this thread has such legs. I would have thought this would > wind up when home. and home.arpa were mentioned way up thread. I’m surprised that this thread contains so much mis-information. Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
