Not having it actually in the RFC itself means that it effectively disappears on publication. This is both a feature and a flaw. If the justification is included in the published RFC, the precedent is very much clearer (and - thus - much less likely to be the cause of confusion and discussion in the future). -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Lars Eggert > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:28 AM > To: ext Bert Wijnen (IETF) > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: new text for ID_Checklist sect 3, item 6 > > Looks good. My only comment is about where the justification > is to be > provided - the PROTO writeup is at least an alternative to putting > this into the document itself, and IMO it's a better alternative. > > Lars > > On 2008-8-13, at 12:21, ext Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: > > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf