On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:31:58AM +0200, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: > Hello all, > > I am reading RFC1591 and RFC3071 and have a couple of simple questions: > 1. Is a ccTLD defined as restricted to 2-letter country codes (ISO3166 > alpha 2), or could that include 3-letter country codes in the ISO3166 > list (ISO3166 alpha 3)? RFC 1591 says, "the two letter country codes from ISO-3166," so I don't see why the 3-letter codes would be included. I can think of a good reason _not_ to include 3 letter codes, and that is the potential for collision with other 3-letter TLDs. (I believe that the traditional resistance to adding _any_ 2-letter TLD, even if it's not on the 3166 list, comes from the possibility that a new country will happen that could collide with such a 2-letter TLD. The ISO list isn't static, and simply reserving everything in the space seems prudent. I will not comment on the wisdom of adding "country codes" that are not on the 3166 2-letter list, except to note the text in 1591, "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country.") > 2. RFC1591 appears to point at 2-letter, but many other parts of this > RFC are obsolete - so does this RFC remain valid? I am not sure what you mean by "parts of this RFC are obsolete". There does not appear to be any RFC that obsletes or even updates RFC 1591. What of course is true is that there is a community that has taken over the policy role for the root zone, and it might be that that community regards some of the text as obsolete. As I pointed out repeatedly to colleagues around ICANN during the preparation for the IANA transition, 1591 is not holy writ. People could update or obsolete it at any time by using the normal processes for obsoleting or updating an RFC. There is the small problem of who has change control over RFC 1591, since it is not obviously a product of the IETF and looks like it might have been a product of IANA. More likely, since ICANN is in the business of making policies for the root zone anyway, ICANN could simply issue a new document that it says it will follow, and publish a statement that for its policy purposes RFC 1591 has been superseded by $document(s). I got the impression, however, during those conversations, that several people prefer the current ambiguity because it allows for divergent opinions, with each opinion holder able to cite some document. Whether this is because there is an unresolved difference of opinion that is hidden behind such appeals, or whether some people just like to have something to argue about so they can go to meetings, I cannot say. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx