Subject: [Ltru] Re: ISO 3166-2 vote (was: Re: ?land )

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:12:46 -0800

Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:

> F1 ISO 3166-2 is currently under review;

What on earth does this have to do with ISO 3166-2?  That part of the 
standard deals with codes for SUBDIVISIONS of countries.  This whole GB 
vs. UK thing is out of scope for ISO 3166-2.

> F2 UK is Northern Ireland's e-mail/webtag;

The use of .uk instead of .gb as a country-code top-level domain (which 
I assume is what "e-mail/webtag" is supposed to mean) was a notable 
error.  All other countries that have an ISO 3166-1 code element use it 
as their ccTLD.  (.com and .org and such are "generic" top-level 
domains, or gTLDs.)

> F3 UK is not currently listed in ISO 3166.

It is listed as "exceptionally reserved" by the United Kingdom, to 
prevent its assignment to any other country.  See 
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/iso_3166-1_decoding_table.html#UK.

> Q1 Woul you like to support its inclusion?

Well, let's see.  I think code changes in ISO 3166-1 should be avoided 
whenever possible, because of stability requirements.  So I don't 
support having UK replace GB.  And I think each entity should be 
represented by one and only one code whenever possible, to avoid 
confusion.  So I don't support having both UK and GB to represent the 
same country, or defining UK to mean the entire United Kingdom while 
redefining GB to mean only the larger island.

So I guess my answer would be, No, I would not.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:48:31 +0100

At 06:12 04/11/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>The use of .uk instead of .gb as a country-code top-level domain 
>(which I assume is what "e-mail/webtag" is supposed to mean) was a 
>notable error.  All other countries that have an ISO 3166-1 code 
>element use it as their ccTLD.  (.com and .org and such are 
>"generic" top-level domains, or gTLDs.)

I documented why/how we made that "error". And that I do not want to 
repeat it with RFC 3066 bis.
BTW may I ask you how you catalog ".cat". I note that the consensus 
of the WG-ltru has been NOT to consider the DNS as concerned by the langtags.

>I think code changes in ISO 3166-1 should be avoided whenever 
>possible, because of stability requirements.  So I don't support 
>having UK replace GB.  And I think each entity should be represented 
>by one and only one code whenever possible, to avoid confusion.  So 
>I don't support having both UK and GB to represent the same country, 
>or defining UK to mean the entire United Kingdom while redefining GB 
>to mean only the larger island.
>

May I ask in which capacity you are commenting decisions by the 
British sovereign Government? This is is the WG-ltru, so I suppose 
your mail is relevant and is an illustration of the world you want us 
to live in under RFC 3066 bis under constraints, managed by an 
unprecise group of experts.

Question: is the "only the larger island" meant to exclude the Isles 
of Wight, the Hebridies, the Orkneys, the Shetlands, Rockall, etc. 
and the claim they may still have on Corsica?
jfc