Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050427113815.04054020@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:48:34 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-1 DIS ballot
In-Reply-To: <426EEAD9.60C8@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <4A7C6FA2AB31194E80E13FE585F6A21292A5EA@EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk>
	<426EEAD9.60C8@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 03:28 27/04/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
>In other words 3066bis draft -01 should work without problems
>at least until date A plus 50 years (2038).  And maybe we can
>improve this situation in draft -02 with a new "canonical" rule
>following 3166-1 as long as possible - until the registry is
>finally forced to take the emergency exit "UN number".
>
>Not bad.  If the future Internet users really hate it they are
>free to invent a new 3066ter where all old 3166-1 codes are
>frozen and deprecated and replaced by UN numbers.  And in that
>case I'd want an "I told you so" on my grave.   Bye, Frank

I do not think this is an acceptable statement both in regard to the 
non-yet debatted charter and of industry needs and market criteria.

It is not either an acceptabe proposition. A position statement should be 
included in the IANA part, since IANA - through ICANN - is a member of the 
ISO 3166 committee, how dormant it is.

The use of 3166-1 alpha2 codes is a choice of this Draft to match some 
existing Internet standard formats. It is up to BCP 047 to document the 
possible use of other formats. No need to wait your decease (unless you 
want the Draft to be your grave).

jfc







_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru