[Top] [All Lists]

rfc2821bis-03 Issue 34: non-2606 domains

2007-04-30 07:36:42

Issue 34 assigned.

<editor hat on>
ok.  Reluctant as I am to open that text for cosmetic reasons,
this seems plausible.  If no one seriously objects, I am willing
to make the changes for -04 iff at least one will step forward
and promise the group to _carefully_ check the edits.   I expect
everyone to read -04, of course, but this is the sort of thing
that can easily slip into the "my eyes glaze over and I assume
someone else has looked at it" category, resulting in the
introduction of bugs.
</editor hat off>

Personal observation: Regardless of the good or bad experiences
others have had (or heard rumors of) with IESG nit-picking that
puts procedures ahead of getting work done, I have gotten very
aggressive about that stuff for reasons unrelated to this
specific effort.  If the main consideration here is that people
believe that 2821bis would be improved, or reader confusion
reduced, by switching to names specifically provided for in
2606, then we should do it.  If, by contrast, the reason for
making this change is because of a perceived requirement to
"conform" to 2606, I would rather spend my time writing appeals
than changing and checking this text.   I note, upon rereading
2606, that it makes some names available for use in examples,
but does not, in any way, require the use of those names or even
(unless one reads the Security Considerations section though an
"anything not permitted is forbidden" lens) suggest that they
should be required.   If there is now such a requirement, it is
one imposed without clear evidence of community consensus.  Even
if such consensus existed and were demonstrated, it would be
more reasonable as a requirement on new documents than as a
basis for forcing additional work and changes to documents being
updated.   Just my opinion and issue, of course, YMMD.


--On Monday, 30 April, 2007 15:27 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt(_at_)oryx(_dot_)com> wrote:

Some examples use non-2606 domains.

I suggest the following general replacements, which seem to
make all the examples and text conflict-free: -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->

There's also an occurence of, but I cannot bring
myself to suggest removing Jon Postel's email address from
821ter ;)