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
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnsext-n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnse… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnse… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnse… Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cheshire-dnse… Donald Eastlake