--On Tuesday, 23 September, 2008 15:07 +0200 Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> I still consider it impolite to use others domain names and
> would have preferred to have some of the domain names changed
> for that reason.
>...
Magnus,
This is actually another example of why the rules should be kept
as simple as possible, rather than trying to cover every case.
Consider the following examples:
(1) I use "disney.com" in an example without their
permission and in a way that they consider rude. Given
their well-established history of aggressively
protecting their well-known trademark, they don't need
the IESG to protect them. Indeed, doing so in an RFC
might result in a situation in which we would need to
take the RFC down, so it would be very poor practice...
but not because of rudeness and a problem the RFC Editor
should address, not the IESG.
(2) J. Random IETF-Participant registers
"magnuswesterlund.biz." and uses it in examples. Some
of those examples have a tone that you would consider
rude. But, since he is the proper registrant of that
name, none of the rules proposed so far would apply.
(3) I use "ibm.com" in an example that constitutes free,
and favorable, advertising of their product. They don't
consider it rude; they might write me a thank-you note.
(4) The history of using "foo" and its variations in
information technology examples goes back a very long
time and examples using those forms predates the first
registration of "example" names by years. Independent
of arguments about the rudeness (or lack thereof)
associated with use of newly-coined domain names the
"belong" to someone else, anyone managing to register
these particular names could reasonably be assumed to
have done sufficient due diligence to understand and
accept the risks -- the wide use of the terms doesn't
change because someone decides to try to exploit them
commercially.
I want to stress that we are in complete agreement that having a
set of reserved names available is a good idea, that people
should think about the names (or "codepoints") they decide to
use, and that the reserved names ought to be the default in the
absence of other considerations. What I'm objecting to is only:
-- the attempt to make the jump from general guidance
about good (and polite) practices to a list of cases and
specific rules
-- the attempt to equate your personal feelings about
rude behavior with a position that seems to amount to
"I think this causes harm, so you need to prove that it
doesn't"
-- the assumption that, since ill-chosen example
configuration file examples can cause problems, so can
any other use of poorly-chosen names or identifiers.
and the implicit belief that the details and explicit rules in
the document, and hence this discussion, are a good use of IESG
and the community's time.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf