The reason that RFC 2606 was made a BCP was that, at the time, it was
felt that a document with that level or approval was needed to reserve
domain names in the global Internet. Alternatively, it could have been
done with a standards track document, but that seemed inappropriate.
As has been stated, there is nothing in RFC 2606 constraining IETF
Author of RFC 2602
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:50 PM
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie(_at_)ictmarketing(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
| I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP
Huh? The BCP in question says (in a bit more eloquent form)
"Here are some domain names that are reserved from all normal use,
and so are suitable for use in places where something with the
syntax of a valid domain names is required, but no real domain
name should be used - use them where applicable".
It does not say "you must use these domain names" (for any purpose
Where's the "go against an IETF BCP" here?
IETF mailing list