This suggests to allow more gTLDs for use as examples.
It seems to me that that would mean an update to RFC2606,
an I consider that out of scope for the ID-Checklist document.
So I will ignore all discussion on this for the current updates.
If an updated 2606 ever occurs, I will accept to update
ID-Checklist accordingly.
Bert
Editor of ID-Checklist
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill McQuillan" <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
On Wed, 2008-07-09, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If an example describes a complex network topology, it could be
appropriate to use a variety of names, IP addresses or prefixes that are
easily disambiguated, so that the reader might follow the example more
easily.
I wonder if it would make it easier to use "example" DNS names if, in
addition to the verbose and clumsy: "*.example", IMHO, we reserved gTLDs
like "*.foo", "*.bar", "*.bat", "*.baz", as well as the one used quite
frequently on this list lately: "*.tld", for use as example DNS names.
Or do we assume that economic concerns would triumph here?
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf