IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

"Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Sat, 09 August 2008 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B8F28C113; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A5528C113 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1zajIsS1ILq for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay.versatel.net [62.250.3.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E9F9928C10D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26483 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2008 15:43:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BertLaptop) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 9 Aug 2008 15:43:31 -0000
Message-ID: <0E16BE6B83254CBFB5BF3D5AE1A47F40@BertLaptop>
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:42:53 +0200
Organization: Consultant
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18000
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

This suggests to allow more gTLDs for use as examples.
It seems to me that that would mean an update to RFC2606,
an I consider that out of scope for the ID-Checklist document.

So I will ignore all discussion on this for the current updates.
If an updated 2606 ever occurs, I will accept to update
ID-Checklist accordingly.

Bert
Editor of ID-Checklist

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill McQuillan" <McQuilWP@pobox.com>
To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist


Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

On Wed, 2008-07-09, Spencer Dawkins wrote: 
> If an example describes a complex network topology, it could be 
> appropriate to use a variety of names, IP addresses or prefixes that are 
> easily disambiguated, so that the reader might follow the example more 
> easily. 

I wonder if it would make it easier to use "example" DNS names if, in 
addition to the verbose and clumsy: "*.example", IMHO, we reserved gTLDs 
like "*.foo", "*.bar", "*.bat", "*.baz", as well as the one used quite 
frequently on this list lately: "*.tld", for use as example DNS names. 

Or do we assume that economic concerns would triumph here? 

-- 
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com> 

_______________________________________________ 
Ietf mailing list 
Ietf@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email