Isn't it a little too redundant to include the parenthetical "RFC 2606 or its successors" along with BCP 32? -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF) > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 6:22 AM > To: IETF Discussion > Subject: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6 > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf