On Apr 28, 2021, at 5:38 AM, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > >> On 28 Apr 2021, at 13:24, Roy Arends <r...@dnss.ec> wrote: >> >> The working group can (after a potential clarification from the ISO about >> the future status of code elements) decide if a subset suffices and if so, >> the composition of the subset. > > I agree with this approach. > > IMO it’s reasonable for the WG to produce an RFC which says “If you need a > TLD for private use, pick from the two letter codes that ISO 3166 MA says > they’ll never allocate. Bear in mind if they later change their mind, you’ll > be on your own and could well be in a world of pain. Have a nice day.”.
s/world of pain/world of pain until you choose a new name that remains unused/. We have no hard evidence that squatting on an unused TLD that is later put in the root zone causes more than annoyance. (This is where our illustrious AD chimes in with some examples from the round of 2012, and I again, exasperatedly, tell him that while those are true cases, they appear to be merely annoyances and ask him for evidence otherwise, and he retorts that it is I who needs to prove my point, not him, and we all sigh and wait another few years before we repeat this.) --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
