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
documents.
Donald
Author of RFC 2602
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Robert Elz
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:50 PM
To: debbie(_at_)ictmarketing(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie(_at_)ictmarketing(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Message-ID: <049b01c8d089$6c901ce0$0a00a8c0(_at_)CPQ86763045110>
| 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
at all).
Where's the "go against an IETF BCP" here?
kre
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf