Dear Steve; On Jun 17, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > 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.) I have skimmed through it, and did not see any such problems in this case. Of course, I could be wrong and would be gladly educated as to the error of my ways. From your description, it may be that 2606 needs a bis too. Regards Marshall > 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