Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
my message is about the "examples" RFC such as 2606,
3330, 3849 or 4735.
I don't see a plausible way to reference RFC 4735
in 2606bis. The "examples" zoo should get its own
section in Brian's next IETF marauders map - adding
TLH example in the Usefor RFC for NetNews.
RFC 3330 has similar problems.
There's a 3330bis draft, if you want more example
IPs we could in theory reserve parts of the former
"class E" for this purpose. In practice I think
we're better off with "unreserving" these IPs excl.
255.255.255.255 covered by RFC 1122 (STD 3). See
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iana-33330bis> +
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space>
+ the RFC 3330 errata for the state of the art.
I agree with you, a RFC 2119 "SHOULD" is OK
+1 MUST makes no sense, an RFC 2119 RECOMMENDED
matches what "we" (TINW) want. But I think that
boils down to a "judgement call" for all involved
parties (editors, authors, community, Chairs, ADs),
it won't fix the bug(s) in the DISCUSS-"protocol".
Frank
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf