[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: [SPAM] Re: Last Call: draft-iana-ipv4-examples (IPv4 Address
From:       Geoff Huston <gih () apnic ! net>
Date:       2009-08-29 10:11:51
Message-ID: 17DE54E6-8421-4218-BF1B-E6FB6B4CF1A0 () apnic ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


On 29/08/2009, at 2:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> I'd like to push back a little on this. My personal preference is a  
> specification style which makes everything very explicit. If a block  
> has been used for examples, I think we owe it to the reader to say  
> what its fate was. I do agree though that we should not set a  
> precedent that every block not listed in RFC 3330(bis)* needs to be  
> explicitly mentioned or else they are still somehow reserved. But  
> maybe there is a way to write the text that this becomes clearer.  
> How about this:
>
> Note that 128.66.0.0/16 has been used for some examples in
> the past. However, this role was never specified formally and
> RFC 3330 confirmed that this block has no special role by not
> listing it.

I'm not sure if its "push back" or working though to an acceptable  
consensus in wording that does not set a precedent. I think its a case  
of the latter, and this wording certainly works for me.

regards,

    Geoff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]