Brian E Carpenter wrote: > That's my opinion; I'm not asserting that it's an IETF > consensus or that it necessarily applies to 2821bis. +1 Some things I'd consider: RFC 821 used foo.arpa and similar examples, and it won't surprise me if the author knew precisely why this can never have any undesirable side-effects. As explained by John RFC 2821 switched to foo.com. All address harvesters looking for strings with an "@" have found it years ago, nothing 2821bis will do can fix it. Or the opposite effect, the RFCs listed in RFC 3092 might have contributed to a better page rank of foo.com, maybe the current owner has no problem with the overall effect. Whatever 2821bis does, it cannot change the good or bad caused by RFC 2821 and other RFCs. Therefore the issue is at first glance purely editorial. *BUT* 2821bis will be one of the most important RFCs for many years - assuming it goes "as is" to STD - and many readers, who will take it as gospel. They will see the foo.com examples, and use similar constructs for their own examples. They won't know or read RFC 2606, and if they get push back they can say "but 5821 also does it". Of course I'd ignore red lights when there's no traffic, and I just want to cross the street. And I'd be upset if some "authority" tells me that I shouldn't do this. But is it really necessary to ignore red lights in the presence of kids who have no clue what can go wrong ? Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf