RE: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6

Not having it actually in the RFC itself means that it effectively
disappears on publication.  This is both a feature and a flaw.

If the justification is included in the published RFC, the precedent
is very much clearer (and - thus - much less likely to be the cause
of confusion and discussion in the future).

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
> Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:28 AM
> To: ext Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf