A brief comment on this... I may have more to say later on...
--On Thursday, 18 September, 2008 10:07 -0700 The IESG
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received the attached text for a proposed IESG
Statement: IESG Statement on the Usage of Assignable
Codepoints in Specification Examples
...
= = = = = = Text of Proposed IESG Statement = = = = = = =
...
1) Spam: apparently valid email addresses in an RFC are widely
believed to have been harvested and included in Spam lists.
The domain may receive spam at mailboxes other than the one
used in the example email address, if the domain name is used
in common name or brute force attacks.
Please note that a careful reading of this paragraph would
either ban or discourage the appearance of author email
addresses in RFCs. Yet such addresses have been a firm
requirement for many years (if I recall, since before there was
an IETF). Questions:
(i) Does the IESG intend to change the requirement for
email addresses?
(ii) Does the IESG believe that the appearance of a
domain name in an email address in an example is somehow
more harmful or likely to draw the attention of spammers
than one in an "Author's Address" section? If not,
could you explain your reasoning?
(iii) Does the IESG intend to pursue the idea, discussed
many times, of creating a reserved mail domain and
assigning all RFC authors mailboxes or aliases in it?
I note with interest that this statement does not appear to
apply (or at least does not appear to offer justification for
applying) these rules to domain names that do not appear in
email addresses (or in configuration files, etc.). I note with
even more interest that reservation of "codepoints" for example
or other documentation purposes would violate existing IESG
statements and rules about conservation of scarce resources
(where scarcity is an issue) or would require negotiation with
other bodies.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf