RE: [idn] Prefix for testing AMC-Z implementations

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, 25 September, 2001 09:23 +0200 "Shaw, Robert"
<Robert.Shaw@itu.int> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin@jck.com]
>> 
>> FWIW, I could make a much stronger case for reserving the
>> two-letter ISO 636 codes than I can for 3166 ones.  We might
> 
> John,
> 
> You probably mean ISO 639.

Sorry, yes. Typographical error brought on by trying to work too
far into the night.

> In this case, DZ is the ISO 639-1 code for Dzongkha
> (Bhutanese).
> 
> see
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html#intro)
> and http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html#ab
> (which shows alpha-2s along with the alpha-3s)

Indeed.  But I didn't mean to suggest that we should reserve the
ISO 639 codes (either).  Although I think the WG should give a
few minutes thought to that option, I'm convinced that getting
close to language issues in the DNS itself would get us into
deep trouble and so, if language distinctions are needed, they
should be worked on in some "above DNS" approach.

That brings us back to the original point -- IMO, if we start
reserving the two-letter sequences from every standard that uses
one, plus excluding those that are already used in significant
ways, we will have nothing left... especially after anticipatory
registrations by cybersquatters are considered.

So the question I would ask you is whether you see a strong case
for reserving, e.g., 3166-1 alpha-2 names as ACE prefixes,
rather than just reserving them as labels.

    john