Preference is #1.
That said. My opinion:
I'm was trained with the Westinghouse motto of "Getting it right the
first time." I can't say if its was wrong to begin with, but obvious
progress was made, the bridge and highways were built. So it probably
wasn't wrong - obviously.
However, it does appears the "docs" people wish to "clean things" up
believing it will be "better".
What is better?
Well, to me, it can only make sense to be better for "new people", the
future generation of internet mail system engineers.
I see no harm with the current engineers in charge of their wares and/or
So option #3 is ok by me as well.
If the IETF believes "Getting it right, the 2nd time" will improve
technical communications with consistent nomenclature for future
generations, then I don't see any harm to changes all the domains to
follow the recommended technical writing guidelines.
Its funny that what comes to mind about all this, I recall a few years
back I posted an SMTP topic showing an example SMTP client/server
session and few responses I got was related to correcting the smtp
session example, including the domain name I used. Completely unrelated
to the topic, but I was still green with IETF ways and clearly
understood it is best to use nomenclature that is considered useful for
Hector Santos, CTO
Tony Hansen wrote:
IESG Secretary wrote:
The IESG received an appeal from John Klensin dated June 13, 2008.
This is a response to that appeal.
1. The appeal asked for the IESG to approve RFC2821bis. The
IESG came to consensus that the use of non-example domain names
should not prevent publication of RFC2821bis, even though the IESG
finds this practice can cause harm. The arguments made in public
list discussion of the appeal have been a factor in the IESG being
able to come to consensus on this point.
John has said to me that he's always been willing to change the
non-example domain names to 2606 example domain names.
Now that the appeal is done and out of the way, do people prefer
1) none of the domain names be changed?
2) all domain names be changed, except Jon Postel's isi.edu and usc.edu
3) all domain names be changed
I would like to get a quick consensus call for this question. Please
respond by Thursday, July 10.
PS. John has also made some minor ABNF tweaks in response to the IESG
comments, as well as adding an explicit acknowledgment to Jon Postel's
work. I'll post a note about these separately.
Hector Santos, CTO