On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:44:33 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yes -- and there's certainly case law to support the IESG's position; the IESG has been insisting on this for years. Now -- there are times when the stated policy just doesn't work. I recall one IPsec document where the example had to show several different networks. John's appeal stated that the WG considered and rejected using the 2606 names; perhaps this is another case. (I haven't read the draft in question.) Hoping the reader will notice the difference between example.com and example.net, or even bad-dog.example.com and good-cat.example.net, is just asking for trouble. So -- in general, I think the IESG's position is a good one, and well-supported by custom; however, there are exceptions. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf