John C Klensin writes:
(2) The I-D Checklist (IDnits,
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html), Section 6, says
"Addresses used in examples SHOULD preferably use fully
qualified domain names instead of literal IP addresses, and
preferably use example fqdn's such as foo.example.com
instead of real-world fqdn's."
"SHOULD preferably" and "preferably" are, I believe obviously,
statements of preference, not firm requirements. That is especially
true of the second one, which doesn't even contain the word
One might say that the suggestion is a stronger one for documents that
have advanced along the standards track.
But even a very strong suggestion allows refutation. The refutation just
ought to be very well considered.
And that's really the key, IMO. So:
The one issue that _is_ specific to 2821bis (and 2821) is that
DRUMS explicitly considered the question of what to do about the
821 examples. In fairness, I don't know how much the WG was
influenced by my personal preferences, but the conclusion was to
eliminate the references to .ARPA (because they were distracting
and clearly impossible given the current role of that domain)
but otherwise to preserve Jon Postel's examples (not just the
ones that used USC or ISI domains) to the extent possible.
This says: The examples that had concrete bad effects have been fixed
already, and the rest were carefully considered already.
The IESG can consider whether it wants to turn the almost-rule into a
proper rule. But that hasnn't been done yet AFAICT, and I think there
are good reasons why it hasn't, and 2821bis should be allowed to
proceed under the actual rules in place. Conventions are fine, but
there's a difference between a rule and a convention: those who think
hard about it and discuss is thoroughly can break conventions.