Re: Limits of RFC 2606

["Frank Ellermann" <[e-mail]>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> my message is about the "examples" RFC such as 2606,
> 3330, 3849 or 4735.

I don't see a plausible way to reference RFC 4735 
in 2606bis.  The "examples" zoo should get its own 
section in Brian's next IETF marauders map - adding
TLH example in the Usefor RFC for NetNews.

> RFC 3330 has similar problems.

There's a 3330bis draft, if you want more example
IPs we could in theory reserve parts of the former 
"class E" for this purpose.  In practice I think
we're better off with "unreserving" these IPs excl.
255.255.255.255 covered by RFC 1122 (STD 3).  See
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iana-33330bis> +
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space>
+ the RFC 3330 errata for the state of the art.

> I agree with you, a RFC 2119 "SHOULD" is OK

+1  MUST makes no sense, an RFC 2119 RECOMMENDED
matches what "we" (TINW) want.  But I think that 
boils down to a "judgement call" for all involved
parties (editors, authors, community, Chairs, ADs),
it won't fix the bug(s) in the DISCUSS-"protocol".

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf