On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:28:21PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: >>> #ccTLD -- A TLD that is allocated to a country. Historically, these >>> #were two-letter TLDs, and were allocated to countries using the two- >>> #letter code from the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard [ISO3166]. In >>> #recent years, there have been allocations of TLDs that conform to >>> #IDNA2008 ([RFC5890], [RFC5891], [RFC5892], [RFC5893], and [RFC5894]); >>> #these are still treated as ccTLDs for policy purposes. >>> >>> "Country" is a loaded term. I don't have a better suggestion in mind but >>> there are many instances where a ccTLD is a territory, etc. I don't mean >>> to open a rathole, just point this out. >> >> If we changed this to say, "A TLD that is allocated using the UN >> country list using the the two-letter code from the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 >> standard [ISO3166]," would that address your concern? > > I would be fine with that wording, but it doesn't hint at what "cc" stands > for. Again, Jon Postel used the word "country code" and "country this" and > "country that" quite liberally in RFC 1591. I'm not convinced we need to step > away from that now. I don't think we do. How about: "ccTLD-- Informally, a TLD that is allocated to a country or similar geographic or economic entity, defined as a matter of policy. More formally, a TLD that is allocated…." The reference to ISO3166 is important to explain as a matter of technical correctness, but the more colloquial usage is what people expect. Does that help? best, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
