On 9/29/16, 03:27, "DNSOP on behalf of John Levine" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that XA-XZ be made private use and
> the rest future use, but as far as I can tell it never went anywhere.
I'd been waiting for anyone else to show an interest in it before spending any
time on it. This is the first mention I've seen on a public list about the
draft. ;)
As David wrote in a later message, the dam burst on Special Use Domain Name
registry discussions.
>I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local
>network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely ever to
>collide with a real DNS name. Am I right?
I'd have to say not right to be "telling people". The one option you have is
".example", unfortunately (and in sympathy) I don't have a better suggestion.
Heuristically, you might be okay using these codes but it's that
same-old-same-old problem of assuming the future. My preference would be to
put the appropriate codes in to the Special Use Domain Name registry before
"telling people". I stress the "telling people" because you using ".qy" isn't
ever going to come to harm (because you can change that "if").
BTW, the user assigned two-letter codes are not the same as unassigned codes.
These have been expressly set aside for local use, these codes aren't eligible
for use in any other way, no matter what a new region might call itself. That
is, it's more likely some other novel use for one of these codes might be found
than the code ever matching an economy's identifier.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
