At 3:21 AM -0700 8/13/08, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: > >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 Is this "seeking 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. I think the "Addresses used in I-Ds SHOULD use FQDNs instead of literal IP addresses" should add "where either would be appropriate in the protocol described." It would be silly to require that a document describing the IPv6 architecture include an "Editor's note:" of this type. I personally think that it is also silly to require at MUST strength the inclusion of such a note where there is a long history of IP rather DNS in a slot (as is the case for SDP). I would prefer "Authors should be aware that that the use of IP addresses where FQDNs or other identifiers would be appropriate may engender questions and delay. They may wish to include explanatory text in an "Editor's Note" or "Note in Draft" to avoid these issues." It just seems more like we're peers discussing the issue that way, rather than the community being told how the IESG will wield its power. But I digress. Authors also need to use a lot of caution in using things ORCHIDS, which use the same bit patterns as IPv6 addresses but are not IP-layer, and ULAs, which have routing policy built in to the address ranges. Whether we want to include general advice to that effect here (Caution! Dangerous ORCHIDS present!) or not is largely a matter of how exhaustive you want this to be. It's well past exhaustive enough, in my opinion, but tastes differ. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf