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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 6/16/08 at 10:00 AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>I think one can make a case that in some documents, use of 
>non-RFC2606 names as examples is a purely stylistic matter, and that 
>in others, it would potentially cause technical confusion.

Please make that case if you would, because the example you give:

>
>In the evaluation record for what became RFC4343 
>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/1612/) we find:
>
>"Editorial issues:
>
>  - the document uses a number of non-example.com/192.0.2.0
>    addresses/names, but in this case this seems justifiable"
>
>In other words this *was* a judgement call.

...quite specifically said it was an "Editorial issue". Please 
explain the circumstance in which it would not be an editorial issue.

Of course, the ballot in this particular case 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2471/> makes no claims 
about "technical confusion". I assume that when no "technical 
confusion" exists, you *would* consider such things "an editorial 
issue"? (A misplaced comma or the use of the passive *may* cause 
"technical confusion", but unless this is called out, the assumption 
is always that such things are "editorial issues".)

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf