At 10:07 18-09-2008, The IESG wrote: >= = = = = = Text of Proposed IESG Statement = = = = = = = > >IESG Statement on the Usage of Assignable Codepoints in Specification >Examples > >Protocol specifications and other documents intended for RFC publication >often include useful examples with correctly formatted and syntactically >valid codepoints. Example codepoints may be names, addresses or assigned >numbers, such as email addresses, domain names, IP addresses or ports. The >value used in an example may already have been assigned or may become >assigned in the future to entities on the Internet, and this can cause >problems. > >Codepoints used in specification examples can result (and have in the >past resulted) in some amount of unwanted traffic. The impact of this >unwanted traffic varies highly depending on the context and nature of the >example. Some examples of causing unwanted traffic include: > >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. Given that the IESG states that the use of valid email addresses causes unwanted traffic, will the IESG prohibit the use of valid email addresses in RFCs? >Use of examples in RFCs is not a new concern. The issues have been known >and considered for several types of codepoints. BCP 32 (RFC 2606 - >Reserved Top Level DNS Names) reserved some domain names for use in >examples. RFC 3330 (Special-Use IPv4 Addresses) and RFC 5156 (Special-Use >IPv6 Addresses) assigned some IP address ranges specially for examples and >documentation. RFC4735 (Example Media Types for Use in Documentation) >registered one example media type and one subtype under each of the >registered media types for example use. Other similar specifications and >reserved codepoints exist. > >The IESG understands that not all types of codepoints have reserved >values or ranges for documentation and examples. The IESG also understands >that sometimes the use of reserved values makes examples harder to read or >less apt. In these cases authors have several options: > > - The specification itself can request further values or codepoints to >be assigned. > > - The author can get permission from the holders of assigned values. >However, the stability of the assignment needs to be considered. Will authors have to seek the permission from the holders, in the case of domain names (e.g. www.w3.org), before using such domains in RFCs? Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf