On Tue Jun 17 15:50:02 2008, Debbie Garside wrote:
Not being a expert on this but having briefly read the documents in
question, I agree with Brian. This is not editorial.
Well, people have commented that changing the examples will hardly
break the Internet mail system, so it seems reasonable to assert that
the counter-argument is also true. In other words, NOT changing the
examples will also not break Internet mail. However, I couldn't
really care what the examples say, as long as they're good, clear
examples, and I think they are.
I would also add that
to go against an IETF BCP
Ah, wait - the document in question is not a missive from the mount
stating "Thou SHALT use example.net everywhere", it says "The IETF
said, 'Let there be reserved domain names for examples'; and there
were."
(I'm translating the documents into language more suitable for the
religious tracts some people appear to think they are - at this rate,
I'm fully expecting future editions to include marginalia comencing
"Once, a student asked the Postel ...")
But the facts are that nobody is "going against" the BCP. The
examples in the document don't take advantage of the facilities
provided by the BCP, but that's different.
on the grounds of "well we have done so already
historically" does not make an argument for continuing to do so;
Perhaps your implication that, irrespective of the past behaviour, we
should create such a rule is sensible...
errors
should be corrected when found, not endorsed.
... but until we do, it is not an error, and - crucially - we should
not expect nor allow the IESG to decide on a whim what is and is not
an error.
If we are to pick and choose
which RFC's/BCP's we will take notice of what is the point of
standardization?
Well, indeed, bravo, and well spoken - that's what John's appeal is
about - what's the point of having procedures and policies at all if
the IESG can say "I must reject your document; it is purple. No
purple documents on Wednesdays, for lo, I have spoken."
You may think I'm making light of this - and I am, because I think
it's a remarkably silly stance from the IESG - but if you can explain
the difference between rejecting all purple documents on Wednesdays
and rejecting documents that do not use RFC 2606, I'll be most
grateful.
On the face of things, and with my little knowledge, I
would say that the person within the IESG who has invoked the
DISCUSS is
quite correct.
And I reckon they're talking bananas.
It doesn't matter, incidentally, whether you consider the use of
example.com to be a good idea or not. I do, although I note that the
XSF's tradition of using a fictional ".lit" TLD with example domains
taken from Shakespeare's plays is actually considerably more
readable, but anyway, I'd be perfectly happy if the IESG made a
statement that as of now, documents which use domains other than
those present in RFC 2606 will not be acceptable.
But I note that there is no such statement from the IESG, so I'm
personally not clear about whether there even is such a policy, or
upon which days of the week it applies - for all I know, given the
lack of statements made by the IESG on RFC 2606 names, these may be
mandated only for purple documents submitted on Wednesdays. And those
aren't allowed, as previously discussed. (And yeah, I know, but
consider this - if I say that the IESG say that purple documents are
not allowed on Wednesdays, that gives that equal weight with the
alledged RFC 2606 rule - the IESG has not made any statement, we've
only heard about this informally via third parties).
What matters here is whether the IESG is allowed to introduce and
enforce a rule with the same action. I do not believe they should be
allowed to.
Even on Wednesdays.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)dave(_dot_)cridland(_dot_)net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf