Independent Submission R. Arends
Internet-Draft ICANN
Intended status: Best Current Practice J. Abley
Expires: October 12, 2021 Public Interest Registry
E. Lisse
Namibian Network Information Center (Pty) Ltd
April 10, 2021
Top-level Domains for Private Internets
draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01
Abstract
There are no defined private-use namespaces in the Domain Name System
(DNS). For a domain name to be considered private-use, it needs to
be future-proof in that its top-level domain will never be delegated
from the root zone. The lack of a private-use namespace has led to
locally configured namespaces with a top-level domain that is not
future proof.
The DNS needs an equivalent of the facilities provided by BCP 5 (RFC
1918) for private internets, i.e. a range of short, semantic-free
top-level domains that can be used in private internets without the
risk of being globally delegated from the root zone.
This document describes a particular set of code points which, by
virtue of the way they have been designated in the ISO 3166 standard,
are thought to be plausible choices for the implementation of private
namespaces that are anchored in top-level domains.
The ISO 3166 standard is used for the definition of eligible
designations for country-code top-level Domains. This standard is
maintained by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. The ISO 3166 standard
includes a set of user-assigned code elements that can be used by
those who need to add further names to their local applications.
Because of the rules set out by ISO in their standard, it is
extremely unlikely that these user-assigned code elements would ever
conflict with delegations in the root zone under current practices.
In order to avoid the operational and security consequences of
collisions between private and global use of these code elements as
top-level domains, this document specifies that such top-level
domains should never be deployed in the global namespace, and
reserves them accordingly in the Special-Use Names Registry
[RFC6761].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and Two-Letter Top-Level Domains
2.1. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 User-assigned Code Elements
3. Private-use top-level Domains
4. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
5. IAB Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations
8. Acknowledgements
9. Informative References
Appendix A. Examples of Current Uses of the User-assigned Code
Elements.
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] is used to map names to
services, systems and other devices that are accessible across
networks. Many network operators configure such name mappings in
such a way that names referring to private resources, such as
services that are intended for use within private networks, are not
published in the DNS for general use over the Internet. Collections
of such names form a private namespace.
Private namespaces can be considered to be local sub-trees of the
familiar, global DNS namespace. An operator can choose where their
private namespace is anchored. Since it is useful for applications
to be able to make use of both private and global names, it is
important that the private and global namespaces do not overlap.
Some operators are known to have chosen top-level domains that do not
exist in the global namespace as anchors for their private
namespaces. Such deployments could theoretically use sub-domains of
a domain registered for the specific hosting entity, though not all
such configurations have such a domain available.
Many protocols outside the DNS have a defined set of elements for
private use, or an identifier that indicates private use, such as
"X-headers" MIME types [RFC2045], addresses for private internets
[BCP-5], the "x-" sub-tag in private-use language tags [BCP-47],
private-use Autonomous System Numbers [BCP-6], and private-use DNS
RRTypes and RCODEs [BCP-42].
There is currently no such facility for the DNS namespace. A user is
required to resort to registering a globally unique domain where a
locally unique domain would suffice, or may configure a domain name
that is not currently delegated from the root zone. Additionally,
there are plenty of examples of device vendors that ship networking
devices with a default setting for DHCP [RFC2131] option 15 (domain
name) [RFC2132], containing a top-level domain that is believed to
not be delegated in the root zone.
In practice, the lack of a private-use namespace facility has led to
the deployment of arbitrary, unregistered, semantically meaningful
top-level domains, such as ".home", ".dhcp", ".lan", ".localdomain",
".internal", ".dlink", ".ip" and ".corp" [ITHI]. These examples of
locally configured strings are derived from traffic to the ICANN
Managed Root Servers [IMRS] and are part of the most popular observed
query names [BCP-219].
While these commonly chosen strings currently do not exist in the
root zone, there is no guarantee that these strings will not be
delegated in the root zone in the future. Therefore, there is no
guarantee that the local use of these strings (or other strings that
might be chosen for private use) will be stable, safe, and secure.
There are many uses for private-use names. It is not feasible to
assign a semantically meaningful, relatively short top-level label to
each individual private-use of a namespace in multiple languages.
Similar to "X-headers" MIME types, and analogous in concept to
address allocation for private internets, this document defines a
range of abstract, two-letter labels that are aligned with the user-
assigned two-letter code elements in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2
[ISO3166-1] standard.
The ISO 3166 standard is used for the implementation of country-code
Top-Level Domains in the DNS. This standard is maintained by the ISO
3166 Maintenance Agency and includes a set of code elements
designated "user-assigned". Such user-assigned code points are in
use for a variety of applications where it is useful to avoid
conflict with codes assigned to countries or regions.
2. The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and Two-Letter Top-Level Domains
IANA's practice of governing the delegation of ASCII two-letter
domain names in the DNS [STD13] root zone is to align it with
assignment of two-letter (known as "alpha-2") code elements in the
ISO 3166-1 standard [ISO3166-1]. The ISO 3166-1 standard contains
many categories of code elements, with the "officially assigned" and
some "exceptionally reserved" code elements being used in the DNS to
represent entities as country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs)
[RFC1591]. The interrelationship is documented in "ICANN and the
ISO, A Common Interest in ISO Standard 3166" [ICANNISO].
In addition to the assigned, available, and reserved code elements,
there are code elements designated as "user-assigned". The intent of
user-assigned code elements is to provide the user with a code
element when no other code element satisfies the intended use.
2.1. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 User-assigned Code Elements
The ISO 3166-1 standard states in section 5.2:
"In addition, exactly 42 alpha-2 code elements are not used in the
ISO 3166, AA, QM to QZ, XA to XZ, ZZ."
And explains in clause 8.1 "Special Provisions":
"Users sometimes need to extend or alter the use of country-code
elements for special purposes. The following provisions give
guidance for meeting such needs within the framework of this part
of ISO 3166. "
And finally, clause 8.1.3 "User assigned code element":
"If users need code elements to represent country names not
included in this part of ISO 3166, the series of letters AA, QM to
QZ, XA to XZ, and ZZ, and the series AAA to AAZ, QMA to QZZ, XAA
to XZZ, and ZZA to ZZZ respectively and the series of numbers 900
to 999 are available. NOTE Users are advised that the above
series of codes are not universals, those code elements are not
compatible between different entities."
As shown above, the ISO 3166-1 user-assigned alpha-2 code elements
are defined to be AA, QM to QZ, XA to XZ, and ZZ. The ranges ("to")
are alphabetic and contain only characters in the US-ASCII definition
[STD80].
Appendix A contains examples of the usage of ISO 3166-1 user-assigned
alpha-2 code elements in various organisations.
3. Private-use top-level Domains
The user-assigned classification of these code elements in the ISO
3166-1 alpha-2 standard allows for the assumption that these code
elements will not risk delegation as country-code top-level Domains
through future assignments to represent a country or territory. To
quote [XNIDN]:
"The use of ISO 3166-1 User-assigned elements removes the
possibility that the code will duplicate a present or future ccTLD
code."
The ISO 3166 user-assigned code elements are hence plausible choices
for network operators who have decided to use a top-level domain as
an anchor for their private namespace. They are safer choices than
some other labels that do not currently exist as top-level domains,
since new top-level domains are assigned from time to time.
The ISO 3166 standard is not maintained by the IETF, and it is
possible that the standard will change in the future. However, the
use of ISO 3166 alpha-2 user-assigned code elements as top-level
domain anchors for private namespaces under the current standard is
well-known. Regardless of any future changes to the ISO 3166
standard, choosing to add a top-level domain in the global namespace
that conflicted with any of these code points in the future could
have negative operational effects and pose security risks.
To avoid these negative operational consequences, this document
directs that the top-level domains corresponding to these ISO 3166
alpha-2 user-assigned code elements should never be deployed in the
global namespace; that is, they must never exist as an owner name in
the root zone of the DNS.
Using these code elements as top-level domains for the purpose of
private-use TLDs is in line with the intended use of these code
elements and follows the many examples of other standards and
protocols. Furthermore, they are short and free of any semantic
meaning.
This document does not recommend any specific ISO 3166-1 alpha-2
user-assigned code as a private use, but instead proposes that any of
them can be used by a network or application for private use. That
is, there is no attempt to choose just one of the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2
user-assigned codes for use as private-use TLDs, just as other
organizations use multiple user-assigned codes for many internal
purposes.
Note that there may be software that treats labels beginning with XN
differently due to the use of the XN- prefix in internationalized
domain names [RFC5890].
4. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
The information that follows is intended to satisfy the requirements
of [RFC6761]. The top-level domains corresponding to the ISO 3166
User-Assigned code elements are special in the following ways:
1. Users are free to use these names as they would any other top-
level domain. However, since this document specifies that these
names MUST never be deployed in the global DNS, users SHOULD be
aware that these names are likely to yield different results on
different networks.
2. Application software SHOULD NOT recognise these names as special
and SHOULD use these names as they would any other name.
3. Name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD NOT recognise these
names as special and SHOULD NOT treat them differently. Name
resolution APIs SHOULD send queries for these names to their
configured caching DNS server(s).
4. Caching DNS servers MAY recognise these names as special and
SHOULD NOT, by default, attempt to look up NS records for the, or
otherwise query authoritative DNS servers on the global Internet
in an attempt to resolve these domains. Instead, caching DNS
servers SHOULD, by default, generate immediate (positive or
negative) responses for all such queries. This is to avoid
unnecessary load on the root name servers and other name servers.
Caching DNS servers SHOULD offer a configuration option (disabled
by default) to enable upstream resolution of such names, for use
in private networks where these domains are known to be handled
by an authoriative DNS server in said private network.
5. Authoritative DNS servers SHOULD recognise these names as special
and SHOULD, by default, generate immediate negative responses for
all such queries, unless explicitly configured by the
administrator to give positive answers from a private namespace.
6. DNS server operators SHOULD, if they are using private namespaces
anchored at these names, configure their authoritative DNS
servers to act as authoritative for these names.
7. DNS Registries/Registrars MUST NOT grant requests to register any
of these names in the normal way to any person or entity. These
names are reserved due to their use in private namespaces, and
fall outside the set of names available for allocation by
registries/registrars. Attempting to allocate one of these names
as if it were a normal DNS domain name will probably not work as
desired, for reasons 4, 5 and 6 above.
5. IAB Considerations
This document specifies that various two-character codes should never
be used in the global DNS as top-level domains, for technical,
operational and security reasons. This technical restriction has
implications for root zone management in the DNS, policy for which is
developed at ICANN.
As part of its review process for this document, the authors suggest
that the IAB exercise its relevant liaisons to ICANN (the
organisation and the community) to ensure that the content of this
document does not raise any concerns that the IAB feels are
important. The authors further suggest that the text in this section
be replaced prior to publication by a record of the IAB's review.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes the observation that the policy of assigning
ccTLD labels is to align with the ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 standard
[RFC1591], which includes user-assigned code elements that will never
be assigned to a territory [ISO3166-1]. This is then consistent with
existing policies that those user-assigned codes will never be
delegated from the DNS root zone and, for that reason, will never
give rise to collisions with any future new TLD.
This document directs that the following rows be added to the
Special-Use Names Registry:
+------+-----------------+
| Name | Reference |
+------+-----------------+
| AA. | (this document) |
| | |
| QM. | (this document) |
| | |
| QN. | (this document) |
| | |
| QO. | (this document) |
| | |
| QP. | (this document) |
| | |
| QQ. | (this document) |
| | |
| QR. | (this document) |
| | |
| QS. | (this document) |
| | |
| QT. | (this document) |
| | |
| QU. | (this document) |
| | |
| QV. | (this document) |
| | |
| QW. | (this document) |
| | |
| QX. | (this document) |
| | |
| QY. | (this document) |
| | |
| QZ. | (this document) |
| | |
| XA. | (this document) |
| | |
| XB. | (this document) |
| | |
| XC. | (this document) |
| | |
| XD. | (this document) |
| | |
| XE. | (this document) |
| | |
| XF. | (this document) |
| | |
| XG. | (this document) |
| | |
| XH. | (this document) |
| | |
| XI. | (this document) |
| | |
| XJ. | (this document) |
| | |
| XK. | (this document) |
| | |
| XL. | (this document) |
| | |
| XM. | (this document) |
| | |
| XN. | (this document) |
| | |
| XO. | (this document) |
| | |
| XP. | (this document) |
| | |
| XQ. | (this document) |
| | |
| XR. | (this document) |
| | |
| XS. | (this document) |
| | |
| XT. | (this document) |
| | |
| XU. | (this document) |
| | |
| XV. | (this document) |
| | |
| XW. | (this document) |
| | |
| XX. | (this document) |
| | |
| XY. | (this document) |
| | |
| XZ. | (this document) |
| | |
| ZZ. | (this document) |
+------+-----------------+
7. Security Considerations
Use of private-use identifiers of any sort is known to result in
unexpected collisions. This has repeatedly been shown for private-
use addresses, private-use identifiers (such as "x- headers") and
private-use names in the DNS. These unexpected collisions can easily
have security ramifications that are well beyond what the user
understands or expects.
8. Acknowledgements
This document is based on an earlier draft by Ed Lewis. David
Conrad, Paul Hoffman, Sion Lloyd, Alain Durand, Jaap Akkerhuis, Kal
Feher, Andrew Sullivan, Petr Spacek, Patrick Mevzek and Kim Davies
have played a role.
9. Informative References
[BCP-219] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[BCP-42] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.
[BCP-47] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[BCP-5] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[BCP-6] Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for
Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, July
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996>.
[CABForum]
"CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements for the Issuance
and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates, version
1.6.9", March 2020, <https://cabforum.org/wp-
content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.6.9.pdf>.
[IANA-Special]
"Special-Use Domain Names", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-
names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml>.
[ICANNISO]
"ICANN and the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO)", n.d.,
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-
3166-2012-05-09-en>.
[ICAO] "International Civil Aviation Organization, Machine
Readable Travel Documents, Part 3; Specifications Common
to all MRTDs", n.d., <https://www.icao.int/publications/
Documents/9303_p3_cons_en.pdf>.
[IMRS] "ICANN Managed Root Server", n.d.,
<https://www.dns.icann.org/imrs/>.
[INTERPOL]
"Interpol Implementation data format for the interchange
of fingerprint, facial & smt information", n.d.,
<https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Forensics/
Fingerprints>.
[ISO3166-1]
"ISO 3166-1:2013 Codes for the representation of names of
countries and their subdivisions - Part 1: Country codes",
2013, <https://www.iso.org/standard/63545.html>.
[ISO3901] "Information and documentation -- International Standard
Recording Code (ISRC)", n.d.,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/64817.html>.
[ISO4217] "ISO 4217; Codes for the representation of currencies and
funds", n.d.,
<https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html>.
[ISO6166] "Securities and related financial instruments --
International securities identification numbering system
(ISIN)", n.d., <https://www.iso.org/standard/44811.html>.
[ITHI] "ICANN's Identifier Technology Health Indicator; Queries
to frequently leaked strings", n.d.,
<https://ithi.research.icann.org/graph-m3.html#M332>.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, DOI 10.17487/RFC1591, March 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1591>.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2132>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.
[STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[STD80] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[UNICODE] "CLDRv37 - Unicode Common Locale Data Repository version
37", April 2020,
<http://cldr.unicode.org/index/downloads/cldr-37>.
[UNLOCODE]
"United Nations Code for Trade and Transport Locations;
UN/LOCODE Manual", n.d.,
<https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/locode/
UNLOCODE_Manual.pdf>.
[WIPO] "World Intellectual Property Organization; Recommended
standard on two-letter codes for the representation of
states, other entities and intergovernmental
organizations.", n.d.,
<https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/
pdf/03-03-01.pdf>.
[WORLDBANK]
"Worldbank API V2 Country API", n.d..
[XNIDN] "Results of IANA Selection of IDNA Prefix", February 2003,
<https://psg.com/~randy/lists/iesg/2003/msg01081.html>.
Appendix A. Examples of Current Uses of the User-assigned Code
Elements.
Using code elements to represent an entity other than a country name
may appear to deviate from the intended use of the ISO 3166-1
standard. However, many organizations, including the IETF and the
ISO, have used the user-assigned range to represent entities other
than country names. The following list is not exhaustive but
illustrates the wide variety of current uses of codes within the ISO
3166-1 user-assigned alpha-2 range.
o The International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) [ISO3901] uses
code element "ZZ" from the User-assigned range for direct
registrants independent of any country.
o The ISO Currency Codes standard [ISO4217] uses code elements "XA"
to "XZ" from the user-assigned range for transactions and precious
metals.
o International Securities Identification Numbers [ISO6166] uses the
following code elements from the user-assigned range:
QS: internally used by Euroclear France
QT: internally used in Switzerland
QW: internally used in WM Datenservice Germany for historical data
XA: CUSIP Global Services substitute agencies
XB: NSD Russia substitute agencies
XC: WM Datenservice Germany substitute agencies
XD: SIX Telekurs substitute agencies
XF: internally assigned, non-unique numbers
XS: Euroclear and Clearstream international securities
o The International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] Machine
Readable Travel Documents standard uses code element "ZZ" from the
user-assigned range for UN travel documents.
o The World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] Standard 3
uses the following code elements from the user-assigned range:
QZ: Community Plant Variety Office (European Union) (CPVO).
XN: Nordic Patent Institute (NPI).
XU: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants (UPOV).
XV: Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI)
XX: recommended to refer to unknown states, other entities or
organizations.
o The United Nations Code for Trade and Transport Locations
[UNLOCODE] uses the code element "XZ" from the user-assigned range
for international waters in accordance with ISO 3166-1 clause
8.1.3:
"3.2.5 In cases where no ISO 3166 country-code element is
available, e.g. installations in international waters or
international cooperation zones, the code element "XZ", available
for user assignment in accordance with clause 8.1.3 of ISO
3166-1/1997, will be used."
o The World Bank Country API [WORLDBANK] uses the following code
elements from the User-assigned range:
XC: Euro area
XD: High income
XE: Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC)
XF: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
XH: Blend
XI: International Development Association
XJ: Latin America and Caribbean (excluding high income)
XL: Least developed countries: UN classification
XM: Low income
XN: Lower middle income
XO: Low & middle income
XP: Middle income
XQ: Middle East & North Africa (excluding high income)
XT: Upper middle income
XU: North America
XX: Not classified
XY: Not Classified
o The Interpol Implementation data format for the interchange of
fingerprint, facial & scar-mark-tattoo information [INTERPOL] uses
code element "ZZ" from the user-assigned range as follows:
Destination Agency Identifier "ZZ/ALL" is reserved for
transactions which shall be distributed by INTERPOL AFIS to all
INTERPOL member states."
o The Certificate Authority Browser Forum Baseline Requirements for
the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates
[CABForum] states that if a country is not represented by an
official ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country-code, the CA may specify the
user-assigned code element "XX" to indicate that an official code
element has not been assigned.
o The UNICODE Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) [UNICODE] version
37 uses the following code elements from the user-assigned range:
QO: Outlying Oceania; countries in Oceania that do not have a
subcontinent.
XA: Pseudo-Accents; special code indicating derived testing locale
with English + added accents and lengthened.
XB: Pseudo-Bidi; special code indicating derived testing locale
with forced RTL English.
ZZ: Unknown Region; used in APIs or as a replacement for invalid
code.
o The IETF Best Current Practice 47 [BCP-47] contains a section and
examples dedicated to private-use subtags, using code elements
from the user-assigned range:
"For example, the region subtags 'AA', 'ZZ', and those in the
ranges 'QM'-'QZ' and 'XA'-'XZ' (derived from the ISO 3166-1
alpha-2 private use codes) can be used to form a language tag. A
tag such as "zh-Hans-XQ" conveys a great deal of public,
interchangeable information about the language material"
o The IETF Proposed Standard "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications" [RFC5890] uses the XN-- prefix. The method that was
used to decide on the prefix was explained in an email from the
IANA to the IETF IDN Working Group list [XNIDN]:
"The following steps will be used to select the two-character
code:
The code will be selected from among a subset of the entries on
the ISO 3166-1, clause 8.1.3 User-assigned alpha-2 code elements:
AA, QM to QZ, XA to XZ, and ZZ. The selection is limited to these
codes because of the following:
The use of ISO 3166-1 User-assigned elements removes the
possibility that the code will duplicate a present or future ccTLD
code."
Authors' Addresses
Roy Arends
ICANN
Email: roy.arends@icann.org
Joe Abley
Public Interest Registry
470 Moore Street
London, true N6C 2C2
Canada
Email: jabley@pir.org
Eberhard W. Lisse
Namibian Network Information Center (Pty) Ltd
Email: el@lisse.na