Thanks everyone for your comments and general support. George, Wes wrote on 06/04/16 16:59: [...]
> I think this is very similar to what happens when people > use randomly chosen IP addresses or ASNs for examples instead of the > proper documentation ones - someone points out that a change needs to be > made, and we all move on. That might mean that it doesn't actually need to > progress as an RFC, having served its purpose as an I-D to start the > discussion. Agree, still I think a document like this can ensure better consistency and raise awareness. [...] > > To the content of the document: > From a strict RFC2119 normative keyword interpretation, I'm don't think > that MUST is the right word here, since you caveat that MUST with > "unless..." Good point. I incorporated the comments and also toned the document down a bit. There are indeed legitimate cases where IPv6 examples are not applicable. Here it is: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples-01.txt Andrei
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
