On 6/18/08 at 10:35 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
The I-D Checklist (IDnits, http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html),
Section 6, says:
Addresses used in examples SHOULD preferably use
fully qualified domain names instead of literal IP
addresses, and preferably use example fqdn's such as
foo.example.com instead of real-world fqdn's.
RFC 2119 has a pretty clear definition of "SHOULD". It says:
This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Ahem. RFC 2119 is also pretty clear about two other things:
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents.
I-D Nits ain't no "standards track document", and it barely qualifies
as an "IETF document". It's certainly not an IETF consensus document.
But also:
6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.
Indeed, the real potential for causing harm or failure to
interoperate in the case of 2821bis would be to change all of the
examples to "example.org", inadvertently screw it up in some
interesting way, and cause people to implement incorrectly. In the
case of a document where almost all of the examples have been left
alone, and those examples have been in use for 7 years without
problems, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate harm if you
want to put a DISCUSS on the document. If you want to put a COMMENT
on the document, it is incumbent on the document editors to review
the decision of 7 years ago and have them explain why that path was
chosen. But unless there is *demonstrable* harm at this point in the
life cycle of the document, it's an editorial issue that does not
warrant a DISCUSS.
(To wit: Wouldn't it have been amusing if John had changed all of the
examples to fit 2606 names and some AD came along and said, "DISCUSS:
This document is heading for Draft Standard after 7 years of
deployment. Even though I can't see an overt problem in the examples
now used, changing them from perfectly good examples that have
interoperated for 7 years without problem has the potential for harm.
Please change them back to their original forms." I'd be far less in
favor of an appeal against *that* DISCUSS.)
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf