Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > my message is about the "examples" RFC such as 2606, > 3330, 3849 or 4735. I don't see a plausible way to reference RFC 4735 in 2606bis. The "examples" zoo should get its own section in Brian's next IETF marauders map - adding TLH example in the Usefor RFC for NetNews. > RFC 3330 has similar problems. There's a 3330bis draft, if you want more example IPs we could in theory reserve parts of the former "class E" for this purpose. In practice I think we're better off with "unreserving" these IPs excl. 255.255.255.255 covered by RFC 1122 (STD 3). See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iana-33330bis> + <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space> + the RFC 3330 errata for the state of the art. > I agree with you, a RFC 2119 "SHOULD" is OK +1 MUST makes no sense, an RFC 2119 RECOMMENDED matches what "we" (TINW) want. But I think that boils down to a "judgement call" for all involved parties (editors, authors, community, Chairs, ADs), it won't fix the bug(s) in the DISCUSS-"protocol". Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf