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

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cheshire@apple.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6A83A6E13; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:10:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Hw-x0RhUzqfZ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7B83A6E0E; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA59C41605A; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807134-b7c51ae000005439-6c-4d0807ef0974
Received: from gertie.apple.com (gertie.apple.com [17.151.62.15]) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id C5.85.21561.FE7080D4; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:12:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Received: from [10.0.1.201] ([173.164.252.149]) by gertie.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0LDG00EI10KU8710@gertie.apple.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:12:30 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: <20101101094624.GC29846@elstar.local>
References: <20101101094624.GC29846@elstar.local>
Message-id: <4EB6E265-450D-41C8-AD98-0665274F7E8C@apple.com>
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:12:37 -0800
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:36:02 -0800
Cc: draft-cheshire-dnsext-nbp.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnsext-nbp-09.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:10:59 -0000

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".

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 <cheshire@apple.com>;
* Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
* www.stuartcheshire.org