Andrew Sullivan writes:
> I still think that defining TLD is
> useful, and I suspect in that definition we'd want to add the
> sentence, "TLDs are often divided into ccTLDs and gTLDs; the division
> is a matter of policy in the root zone, and beyond the scope of this
> document." Or something like that. Any objection?
No objection.
> The point of
> adding this is to give people some clue about these terms when they
> come across them and to indicate that it's a matter of policy and not
> protocol.
Yep. One could name sTLD (Sponsored TLD) and infrastructural TLDs as
well although it might distract again from the main point: There is a
difference between protocol and naming policy.
jaap
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
