Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6
I seem to be in the minority, but I object.
This results, if I understand correctly, from the dispute that JCK had
with the IESG a little while ago. Basically, someone on the IESG felt
that rules of this sort should apply, an update to an existing
specification didn't conform, and they objected to an update to an
existing RFC on the basis of personal opinion. This attempts to
enshrine that opinion in legislation.
And you know what? I think there are two cases here.
In one case, you have an entirely new document. On that case, no
argument. If this is the rule we want, let it be, and I am willing to
see the rule.
In the case the discussion was over, that seems like a big change from
the document being updated, and the editor would have to be pretty
about how s/he did it to make sure s/he didn't change anything
unintentionally. The usage in the past documents hasn't been confusing
to engineers in the past, and a change to it might introduce confusion.
In the latter case - the case under dispute - I disagree with the
sense of this rule. I think the important thing is clarity, and
clarity is enhanced by not changing text whose sense isn't actually
And oh yes, I agree with Eric's comment that including this in an
erratum stored separate from the document isn't very helpful. I think
it will come as a surprise to most people when it is enforced, and
this kind of thing doesn't want surprises.
On Aug 13, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
The revision 1.8 of the ID-Checklist is at
Sect 3, item 6 in that revision states:
6. Addresses used in examples SHOULD use fully qualified
domain names instead of literal IP addresses, and SHOULD
use example fqdn's such as foo.example.com instead of
real-world fqdn's. See [RFC2606] for example domain names
that can be used.
John Klensin has proposed new text, whcih was amended by
Ted Hardie and the resulting text (if I understood it correctly) is:
"6. Addresses used in I-Ds SHOULD use fully qualified
domain names (FQDNs) instead of literal IP addresses. Working
Groups or authors seeing exemptions from that rule MUST
supply the rationale for IP address use with inline comments
(e.g., "Editor's note:" or "Note in Draft:" that can be
evaluated by the IESG and the community along with the rest
of the document. Example
domains in pseudo-code, actual code segments, sample
data structures and templates, specifically including MIB
definitions and examples that could reasonably be
expected to be partially or entirely copied into code, MUST
be drawn from the list reserved for documentary
use in BCP32 (RFC 2606 or its successors). It is
generally desirable for domain names used in other I-D
discussion contexts to be drawn from BCP32 as well, if only
as an act of politeness toward those who might be using
the domains for other purposes at the time of publication
or subsequently. Working groups or editors who are
convinced that different names are required MUST be prepared
to explain and justify their choices and SHOULD do so with
explicit inline comments such as those described above."
From the discussion on the list (that I have seen), people seem to
be OK with that text. It is quite a bit longer, but so be it.
Does anyone have objections to the above text as replacement for
the current text?
Bert Editor for ID_Checklist
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list
|<Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread>
Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6, Lars Eggert
Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6, Ted Hardie
Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6, SM
Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6,
Fred Baker <=
- BCP or RFC references (was: RE: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6), (continued)