On 7/7/15 4:48 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
It seems to me that UM did appear in the root and then was taken out of service. I doubt we’d want to see it assigned to another country or territory in the near future. I’d put it in subset 8 unless it were brought back to life in the service of the same territory it had been used for before.
The Dept. of Insular Affairs within the Dept. of the Interior may, or may not, allow its iso3166-1 code point allocation(s) to be repurposed.
My very minor point is that Insular Affairs, not we (either hat), make policy wrt the UM code point.
Eric _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
