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

Reply via email to