There is a small chance that ISO might change this in the future, but as long as there are some excluded/user assigned ISO code elements left I too think letting the user assign the pseudo TLD(s) makes sense.
Even though I like the .ZZ idea :-)-O el On 2019-11-22 20:45 , Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 22, 2019, at 1:33 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >> I don’t understand why one would need to pick ZZ (or any other user >> defined code) to mean by convention anything. It doesn’t hurt >> anything, I just don’t see the point. >> >> I would turn the question around: >> >> Why not simply have an RFC that declares the user defined ISO 3166 >> codes as the RFC 1918-space equivalent for the DNS and be done with >> it? If people _really_ want to continue the bike shedding on a >> particular string, they still can, but the folks who want a string >> (or strings) that they can use for internal purposes without fear of >> it being delegated in some future round of new gTLDs can just get on >> with their lives. > > I agree completely. The RFC that declares this should advise > potential users of these TLDs to use a random number to choose one of > the available names, so that the likelihood of a collision is at least > somewhat lessened in case of a future merger. Locking it to .ZZ or > suggesting that people to pick based on preference creates a higher > likelihood of such collisions. -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) e...@lisse.na / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
