ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6

2008-08-13 06:30:01
Looks good. My only comment is about where the justification is to be provided - the PROTO writeup is at least an alternative to putting this into the document itself, and IMO it's a better alternative.

Lars

On 2008-8-13, at 12:21, ext Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:

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