> On 16 Jun 2020, at 01:18, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Roy Arends <[email protected]> writes: > >> The can never be registered. There is no collision. That is the point >> of all of this. > > Then why does your draft say "unlikely" in multiple places rather than > the strength of your wording above: "can never"?
I use unlikely twice (2, two times, not more). The first time I use the term “extremely unlikely” because the generally accepted term for “never", without having to say “never” is “Highly unlikely” was not strong enough IMHO. The second time I use the term unlikely was: "It is unlikely that the user-assigned range will change.” which refers to the probability of the range changing. I had “extremely unlikely” here as well at first, but then noticed that “OO” can be utilised to indicate that code elements other than those defined in the ISO 3166 are used, If the number of user-assigned code elements in 8.1.3 is not sufficient to cover a particular user requirement. I will fix that in the next release to say “extremely unlikely”, and explicitly exclude “OO” from the list. I hope that works for you, Thanks Warmly, Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
