Since I already said I was ok with the addition, can we just stipulate that I'm
wrong and move along with it?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 6, 2015, at 17:06, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
I have never heard of ARPA being treated as a subclass
I have never heard of ARPA being treated as a subclass of gTLD.
Regards,
-drc
On May 4, 2015, at 4:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. (into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
On 4 May 2015, at 7:16, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I.e. 3166/MA is very careful with it not being the ones that register codes.
Let me add...but they have not been so careful with what codes they reserve.
Remember that in those days the list of reserved codes was not public (although
IANA did
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:16:43AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Note that if we look at the original discussion, my only point is that we
should not claim ccTLDs are only allocated according to ISO 3166, but that
there is freedom to create two letter codes -- and that this has happened.
On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
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
Patrik Fältström writes:
But instead ICANN have, and still am, referring to EU be on the reserved
list (and now exceptionally reserved) as a reason to allocate as a ccTLD.
If one read the board resolution approving EU as a (cc-)TLD, one will
notice that this is really an exception [1]
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
On 4 May 2015, at 10:25, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
On May 4, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
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
On 5/4/15, 4:22, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
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?
My one addition would be to word this such that the
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. (into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
categories;)[0]
I'm not opposed to the and other categories, but the truth is that
anyone who cares about DNS never hears about those other categories.
Even
[This has drifted a ways off from DNS terminology, so I changed the subject]
Patrik,
Sorry, I'm a bit confused.
What ISO 3166/MA said was that the _only_ difference between the two, and the
reason why they reacted on .EU, was that ICANN referred to .EU being reserved
as a reason for
11 matches
Mail list logo
