I know, I could submit these to the PSL website directly. I am asking a meta question: do we think that operationally, if a PSL exists, that all ccTLD and TLD should be on it?
The following ccTLD are in ISO3166 but not in the PSL: bd bl bq ck eh er fk jm kh mf mm np pg um za all the other ccTLD in iso3166 appear to be on it. As well as the usual non-ISO3166 suffixes like EU and UK. I could have asked this on dns-operations, my wondering here is that maybe we need to suggest to ICANN that it's a formalism? Operationally, much though I dislike the PSL (for entirely subjective reasons I might add,mostly around governance and ancient history) it exists, no matter what I think about it. So, given it exists, systems are coded to behave against it, and not having SOME ccTLD (and I would posit gTLD) on it, means they don't match as "first class citizens" the behaviour the PSL brings. I could also understand a pushback "somebody else's business" or "take it up with ICANN directly there's no IETF in this" as well as "the CCTLD self manage, nobody tells them what to do" (the PSL is discussed from time to time here) cheers -George _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
