Hi, On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:24 AM Roy Arends <r...@dnss.ec> wrote:
> Hi Donald, > > On 28 Apr 2021, at 03:34, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am not comfortable with grabbing all the permanently unassigned 2-letter > country codes for DNS private use. > > > Note: I was the primary author of RFC 2606 and have been involved in this > sort of thing before. See > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-2606bis/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names/ > > > At one early point I considered the addition of a number of additional > TLDs for testing purposes to the draft that became RFC 2606 including, as I > recall, one that was 63 octets long and a number 2-letter codes taken from > the permanently unassigned 2-letter ISO country codes. John Postel rejected > such efforts and in particular, if I recall correctly, indicated that as > IANA (at the time when essentially all registries were Expert Review and > John was the universal expert) he would reject any effort to assign any DNS > use to any ISO 2-letter code, other than as a national country code, unless > a liaison was received from ISO explicitly permitting such use regardless > of public statements by ISO that ISO would not assign a use to such any or > all such code in the future. > > > Ack. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1720/ to solicit that > effect. > My apologies for being unaware of that liaison. If ISO says it's OK, then I have no objection to recommending that some of these private use 2-letter codes be used for local DNS zones. But if they are good for this use with reference to the DNS, then I don't see why it might not turn out some day there is some different good use for them. So I would pick half of them and just recommend those. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com > That may have been an earlier era but I think John Postel's position > should still have some weight. > > > I agree. > > And I would note that more recently, the IESG has wanted a liaison to be > crystal clear about permissions from other standards development > organizations for anything that is at all questionable. > > > I agree. > > Asking the ISO for a clarification in the form of a liaison statement is > an important first step. It indicates that the IETF is aware of these > specific UA code elements, and is willing to ask clarification on them, and > respects the organisation responsible (the ISO) for these code elements. > Following established diplomacy between the IETF and the ISO on this > specific matter is IMHO preferable and more inclusive over either sitting > in fear and do nothing, because “ISO or IANA may get upset if we (the IETF) > do this", or worse, that an emboldened IETF DNSOP WG unilaterally decides > that these elements are just like “code elements” and should be “retired” > (put on a "do not delegate” list), which IMHO would create unnecessary > frustration between various organisations.” > > The liaison ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1720/ ) send by the > IAB to the ISO is IMHO a clear indication that a path of diplomacy is > preferred over unilaterally retiring code elements. > > 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. > > Warmly, > > Roy > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
