On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of >non-RFC2606 names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that >in others, it would potentially cause technical confusion. Please make that case if you would, because the example you give: > >In the evaluation record for what became RFC4343 >(https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/1612/) we find: > >"Editorial issues: > > - the document uses a number of non-example.com/192.0.2.0 > addresses/names, but in this case this seems justifiable" > >In other words this *was* a judgement call. ...quite specifically said it was an "Editorial issue". Please explain the circumstance in which it would not be an editorial issue. Of course, the ballot in this particular case <https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2471/> makes no claims about "technical confusion". I assume that when no "technical confusion" exists, you *would* consider such things "an editorial issue"? (A misplaced comma or the use of the passive *may* cause "technical confusion", but unless this is called out, the assumption is always that such things are "editorial issues".) pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf