Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:

> List 2606 in the informative references, and footnote the examples  
> used to indicate that they are "grandfathered" non-2606 examples.

It seems that this gives 2606 more weight than it claims. What it  
claims is, quoting its abstract:

    To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level
    domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in
    documentation, and the like.  In addition, a few second level domain
    names reserved for use as examples are documented.

in other words, the names are reserved, but there is no statement (on  
either page of the RFC) that the naming is exclusive. One *may* use  
such names, but one is not *required* to.

Footnoting and saying that they have been "grandfathered" asserts  
that there is such an exclusionary rule and this is an exception to it.

To my way of thinking, if you want to put something into the  
document, you want something like:

     The names in this document are consistent with RFC 2820/2821 and  
RFC 820/821.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf