Pete (and Dave Crocker), On 2008-06-17 03:20, Pete Resnick wrote: > 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. Well, I've seen *many* cases of disagreement whether a particular issue was editorial or substantative, so I wouldn't claim that there is any absolute standard here. And I've been trying not to comment on the specific issue of 2821bis, because I have not reviewed it in detail and make no claim to expertise. Nor am I commenting on whether the specific DISCUSS comments in this case are reasonable or not and whether they are well-formulated or not. If a real domain name, or a real IP address, or a real IP prefix, is used as an example in code, pseudo-code, or in the description of a configuration mechanism, there's a good chance that it will end up in an actual implementation or in an actual configuration file one day (far from the IETF). In my opinion that is a source of technical confusion and possibly of unwanted traffic. So I think there is a strong argument that RFC 2606 values SHOULD be used whenever reasonably possible. That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis. But I do assert that it's a technical argument and not an editorial one. Brian > > 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 _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf