I fully agree with Debbie here. Human experience teaches us that examples will be used, over time. Foo.com is a commercial site. If the IETF uses foo.com in email examples, it is reasonable to assume that foo.com will get unwanted traffic because of that. I think that the IETF should not put itself in the position of causing avoidable pain to others, even if the likelihood of serious harm is small. Since there is a remedy, and it could be adopted readily, I think that the discuss was reasonable and do not support the appeal. Regards Marshall On Jun 17, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Debbie Garside wrote: > Not being a expert on this but having briefly read the documents in > question, I agree with Brian. This is not editorial. I would also > add that > to go against an IETF BCP on the grounds of "well we have done so > already > historically" does not make an argument for continuing to do so; > errors > should be corrected when found, not endorsed. If we are to pick and > choose > which RFC's/BCP's we will take notice of what is the point of > standardization? On the face of things, and with my little > knowledge, I > would say that the person within the IESG who has invoked the > DISCUSS is > quite correct. > > Feel free to try to change my mind. > > Best regards > > Debbie Garside > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter >> Sent: 16 June 2008 22:42 >> To: Pete Resnick >> Cc: John C Klensin; iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on >> draft-klensin-rfc2821bis >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf