In article <71ad677a-8c88-8916-fe02-7d0d8ae93...@dougbarton.us> you write: >I agree with Matt, Bill Woodcock, Steve Crocker, and others that have >expressed that we should stay out of ISO's sandbox. Whatever the rules >are today, they can change, and poaching their stuff for our purposes is >bad form (and yes, I feel that poaching is what is being proposed, in >spite of the arguments to the contrary).
I don't see how relying on ISO's advice is poaching. They say: If users need code elements to represent country names not included in ISO 3166-1, the series of letters AA, QM to QZ, XA to XZ, and ZZ, and the series AAA to AAZ, QMA to QZZ, XAA to XZZ, and ZZA to ZZZ respectively, and the series of numbers 900 to 999 are available. NOTE: Please be advised that the above series of codes are not universal, those code elements are not compatible between different entities. That note tells me they're like RFC 1918 IP addresses, use them in your organization but be aware that other organizations will use them differently. >ICANN has already said that it's not going to ever delegate CORP, HOME, >or MAIL. They said indefinitely defer which is not the same thing at all. If the facts change, e.g., the number of root queries for one of them drops significantly, I'm sure they'll revisit them. The IETF has already decided to stay out of the home/corp/mail argument, reasonably concluding that RFC 6761 are for names that are technically special which these are not. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
