Thanks to Henrik for this! https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/changelog
2.14.01 <https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits-v2.14.01> (diff-2.14.01 <https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits-v2.14.01.diff.html>) * Added a comment about adding IPv6 examples for documents that uses addresses from the IPv4 documentation range, without having any from the IPV6 documentation range * Changed some references to RFC5735 to instead mention RFC6980. ( Henrik Levkowetz <[email protected]> 06 Apr 2016 9:57:59 +0100) Lee On 4/7/16, 6:30 AM, "sunset4 on behalf of Andrei Robachevsky" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >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-ip >v6-examples-01.txt > >Andrei > >_______________________________________________ >sunset4 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
