A brief comment on this... I may have more to say later on... --On Thursday, 18 September, 2008 10:07 -0700 The IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has received the attached text for a proposed IESG > Statement: IESG Statement on the Usage of Assignable > Codepoints in Specification Examples >... > > = = = = = = Text of Proposed IESG Statement = = = = = = = >... > 1) Spam: apparently valid email addresses in an RFC are widely > believed to have been harvested and included in Spam lists. > The domain may receive spam at mailboxes other than the one > used in the example email address, if the domain name is used > in common name or brute force attacks. Please note that a careful reading of this paragraph would either ban or discourage the appearance of author email addresses in RFCs. Yet such addresses have been a firm requirement for many years (if I recall, since before there was an IETF). Questions: (i) Does the IESG intend to change the requirement for email addresses? (ii) Does the IESG believe that the appearance of a domain name in an email address in an example is somehow more harmful or likely to draw the attention of spammers than one in an "Author's Address" section? If not, could you explain your reasoning? (iii) Does the IESG intend to pursue the idea, discussed many times, of creating a reserved mail domain and assigning all RFC authors mailboxes or aliases in it? I note with interest that this statement does not appear to apply (or at least does not appear to offer justification for applying) these rules to domain names that do not appear in email addresses (or in configuration files, etc.). I note with even more interest that reservation of "codepoints" for example or other documentation purposes would violate existing IESG statements and rules about conservation of scarce resources (where scarcity is an issue) or would require negotiation with other bodies. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf