ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6

2008-08-15 09:18:34
I seem to be in the minority, but I object.

This results, if I understand correctly, from the dispute that JCK had with the IESG a little while ago. Basically, someone on the IESG felt that rules of this sort should apply, an update to an existing specification didn't conform, and they objected to an update to an existing RFC on the basis of personal opinion. This attempts to enshrine that opinion in legislation.

And you know what? I think there are two cases here.

In one case, you have an entirely new document. On that case, no argument. If this is the rule we want, let it be, and I am willing to see the rule.

In the case the discussion was over, that seems like a big change from the document being updated, and the editor would have to be pretty about how s/he did it to make sure s/he didn't change anything unintentionally. The usage in the past documents hasn't been confusing to engineers in the past, and a change to it might introduce confusion.

In the latter case - the case under dispute - I disagree with the sense of this rule. I think the important thing is clarity, and clarity is enhanced by not changing text whose sense isn't actually being changed.

And oh yes, I agree with Eric's comment that including this in an erratum stored separate from the document isn't very helpful. I think it will come as a surprise to most people when it is enforced, and this kind of thing doesn't want surprises.

On Aug 13, 2008, at 6:21 PM, 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