> On 15 Jun 2020, at 22:51, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Suzanne Woolf <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything
>> for any particular purpose.
>
> No, but it does make the recommendation to use unreserved space.
No.
This is not unreserved space. This is space reserved, for the user. By the ISO,
blessed by RFC1591.
> But it
> "proposes that nay of them can be used by a network or application for
> private use." [section 5].
Yes, as designed by the original drafters of the ISO3166 standards and used
today, as intended, by a wide variety of organisations, including the IETF.
> Fundamentally, the end effect is the same:
> we recommend you use these "unreserved" code points.
Not unreserved.
> The net effect in
> real world traffic will likely be the same (by design).
Sure.
> And the net
> effect in policy will likely be the same: a potential collision that
What?
> forces other organizations to never register them because the defacto
> standard created by this non-registration would be to treat it like it
> was a registration. [see .onion]
The can never be registered. There is no collision. That is the point of all of
this.
Roy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
