Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnsext-nbp-09.txt

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

As the principle author of 2606, I believe they were intended to be
encouraged but not mandatory.

For some time there has been an increasingly hardened attitude about
this in the IESG and, basically, you won't be allowed to use other
names unless there is a good reason a 2606 name won't serve the
purpose or possibly if you are doing a minor update version of an
existing RFC and don't want to disturb it more than necessary.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2010, at 2:46 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> On page 9, the DNS name "printer1.ietf.org" should probably changed to
>> "printer1.example.com".

Why not make the minimal change and use printer1.example.org?

Donald

> We'll update the example in the document, but I have a question:
>
> RFC 2606 states that names like example.com "can be used as examples". I
> agree that when writers *want* to use a vendor-neutral example it's useful
> to have these names available, but are they mandatory? Is there an RFC which
> states that *all* examples MUST use example.com?
>
> I've been seeing this a lot recently. Any time someone uses an example name
> other than the RFC 2606 example names, people leap on them and tell them
> this is not allowed and all RFCs have to use only the RFC 2606-sanctioned
> example names. Is this true? There's a big difference between saying "these
> names are available for use if you want" and "these names are mandatory and
> you're not allowed to use any others".
>
> Stuart Cheshire <[e-mail]>
> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
> * www.stuartcheshire.org