RE: Genart last call review of draft-kille-ldap-xmpp-schema-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



shakespeare.example is a fine domain to use - the XMPP community (mostly due to Peter Saint-Andre) has used these inventive domains to express examples with more clarity - montague.lit, capulet.lit, and so on provide usefully recognisable domains. But .example is just as good as .lit, and just as clear.

On 20 Sep 2017 14:39, "Steve Kille" <steve.kille@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stewart,

These Shakespearean style addresses are conventionally used in XMPP XEPs, and I followed that style here.

I've discussed with XMPP colleagues, and we agree that although the convention is cool, you are right that a safe address should be used.

I have fixed this in 06, which I just submitted


Regards


Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 September 2017 11:56
> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: draft-kille-ldap-xmpp-schema.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-kille-ldap-xmpp-schema-05
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-kille-ldap-xmpp-schema-05
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2017-09-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: A well written document, however it uses an example email
> address that might be allocated in the future, rather than one for the
> example range.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>
> "romeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx representing a user) "
>
> That is a really cool example! However I can imagine .lit eventually being
> allocated so we ought to use one of the RFC6761 example TLDs.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:  None
>




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]