Isn't it a little too redundant to include the parenthetical
"RFC 2606 or its successors" along with BCP 32?
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF)
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 6:22 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6
The revision 1.8 of the ID-Checklist is at
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
Sect 3, item 6 in that revision states:
6. Addresses used in examples SHOULD use fully qualified
domain names instead of literal IP addresses, and SHOULD
use example fqdn's such as foo.example.com instead of
real-world fqdn's. See [RFC2606] for example domain names
that can be used.
John Klensin has proposed new text, whcih was amended by
Ted Hardie and the resulting text (if I understood it correctly) is:
"6. Addresses used in I-Ds SHOULD use fully qualified
domain names (FQDNs) instead of literal IP addresses.
Working Groups or authors seeing exemptions from that
rule MUST supply the rationale for IP address use with
inline comments (e.g., "Editor's note:" or "Note in
Draft:" that can be evaluated by the IESG and the
community along with the rest of the document. Example
domains in pseudo-code, actual code segments, sample
data structures and templates, specifically including MIB
definitions and examples that could reasonably be
expected to be partially or entirely copied into code,
MUST be drawn from the list reserved for documentary
use in BCP32 (RFC 2606 or its successors). It is generally
desirable for domain names used in other I-D discussion
contexts to be drawn from BCP32 as well, if only as an
act of politeness toward those who might be using the
domains for other purposes at the time of publication or
subsequently. Working groups or editors who are
convinced that different names are required MUST be
prepared to explain and justify their choices and SHOULD
do so with explicit inline comments such as those
described above."
From the discussion on the list (that I have seen), people seem to
be OK with that text. It is quite a bit longer, but so be it.
Does anyone have objections to the above text as replacement for
the current text?
Bert
Editor for ID_Checklist
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf