Dear Steve;
On Jun 17, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400
Marshall Eubanks <tme(_at_)multicasttech(_dot_)com> wrote:
I fully agree with Debbie here.
Human experience teaches us that examples will
be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses
foo.com in email examples,
it is reasonable to assume that foo.com will get unwanted traffic
because of that. I think that
the IETF should not put itself in the position of causing avoidable
pain to others, even if the likelihood of serious harm is small.
Since there is a remedy, and it could be adopted readily, I think
that the discuss was reasonable and do not support the appeal.
Yes -- and there's certainly case law to support the IESG's
position; the IESG has been insisting on this for years.
Now -- there are times when the stated policy just doesn't work. I
recall one IPsec document where the example had to show several
different networks. John's appeal stated that the WG considered and
rejected using the 2606 names; perhaps this is another case. (I
haven't read the draft in question.)
I have skimmed through it, and did not see any such problems in this
case. Of course,
I could be wrong and would be gladly educated as to the error of my
ways.
From your description, it may be that 2606 needs a bis too.
Regards
Marshall
Hoping the reader will notice the
difference between example.com and example.net, or even
bad-dog.example.com and good-cat.example.net, is just asking for
trouble.
So -- in general, I think the IESG's position is a good one, and
well-supported by custom; however, there are exceptions.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf