good stuff --- >From ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx Wed Aug 13 06:54:56 2008 X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx X-Original-To: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Delivered-To: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.359 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599] From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:21:41 +0200 Organization: Consultant MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18000 X-BeenThere: ietf@xxxxxxxx X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@xxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@xxxxxxxx?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@xxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx Errors-To: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx The revision 1.8 of the ID-Checklist is at http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html Sect 3, item 6 in that revision states: 6. Addresses used in examples SHOULD use fully qualified domain names instead of literal IP addresses, and SHOULD use example fqdn's such as foo.example.com instead of real-world fqdn's. See [RFC2606] for example domain names that can be used. John Klensin has proposed new text, whcih was amended by Ted Hardie and the resulting text (if I understood it correctly) is: "6. Addresses used in I-Ds SHOULD use fully qualified domain names (FQDNs) instead of literal IP addresses. Working Groups or authors seeing exemptions from that rule MUST supply the rationale for IP address use with inline comments (e.g., "Editor's note:" or "Note in Draft:" that can be evaluated by the IESG and the community along with the rest of the document. Example domains in pseudo-code, actual code segments, sample data structures and templates, specifically including MIB definitions and examples that could reasonably be expected to be partially or entirely copied into code, MUST be drawn from the list reserved for documentary use in BCP32 (RFC 2606 or its successors). It is generally desirable for domain names used in other I-D discussion contexts to be drawn from BCP32 as well, if only as an act of politeness toward those who might be using the domains for other purposes at the time of publication or subsequently. Working groups or editors who are convinced that different names are required MUST be prepared to explain and justify their choices and SHOULD do so with explicit inline comments such as those described above." >From the discussion on the list (that I have seen), people seem to be OK with that text. It is quite a bit longer, but so be it. Does anyone have objections to the above text as replacement for the current text? Bert Editor for ID_Checklist _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf