Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to
the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical
and/or financial) to mild embarrassment.
If anyone wants to use an identifier outside the example space, then to
protect both the owner of the identifier and the IETF, the author really
needs to provide the IETF with evidence of written authorization to use
it for this purpose.
In the case of this draft, have the owners of the identifiers
been contacted by the author, and do they agree to this use?
You are aware that the same examples have been in a published RFC for over
seven years?
Because this point keeps getting overlooked, it's worth saying "... a
published STANDARDS-TRACK RFC ...".
But, whatever. My suggestion is to stop posting in this thread and let the
IESG do what they need to do, now that they have an appeal in hand. We're
just distracting them and inflaming the community at this point.
They are actively discussing the topic, not just the appeal. From the most
recent IESG telechat minutes:
6.2 IESG Statement on BCP 32 (Russ Housley)
The management issue was discussed.
Action Item: Magnus Westerlund to draft an IESG Statement on BCP 32.
(taken from https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/telechat/391/)
Jari has split off a new thread on "Measuring IETF and IESG trends" -
obviously, that's not the kind of "posting in this thread" I'm hoping to
discourage.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf