Subject: example.com

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:35:13 -0700

the iesg wonders whether it should be seriously pushing back on
domain names used as examples in drafts that are not drawn from
rfc 2606.  the opinion of dnsop is solicited.  thanks.

randy

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:58:57 -0400

No - I think there are more serious problems to be concerned with.

Other thoughts:
     I don't think that the value of data elements (such as a domain
     name) impact the chance that a document can be clearly used by
     multiple, independent implementation parties to produce interoperable
     code.

     I would encourage the use of the example domains in the ID-nits document,
     but label it as an unenforced suggestion.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

It's true, my last college class really was "Introduction to Ada."
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:08:26 -0700

Randy Bush wrote:
> rfc 2606. 

Yes, they should. I think the reasoning is obvious ...

Doug

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:04:05 -0700

>      I don't think that the value of data elements (such as a domain name)
>      impact the chance that a document can be clearly used by multiple,
>      independent implementation parties to produce interoperable code.
> 
>      I would encourage the use of the example domains in the ID-nits
>      document, but label it as an unenforced suggestion.

people cut and paste from examples.  what if queries are generated
to foo.x?  how did 192.0.2.0/24 become glowing slag?

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:14:30 -0700

> Yes, they should. I think the reasoning is obvious ...

i suspect it is not obvious to all.  so you might help explain a
bit.

randy

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:26:12 -0700

<aol>
me too
</aol>

On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 01:58  PM, Edward Lewis wrote:

> document,

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:29:00 -0700

> i suspect it is not obvious to all.  so you might help explain a

Well, the first two paragraphs of section two lay out the reasoning I'm 
referring to. There is no reason to use other names in the documentation 
when there are perfectly suitable examples designed specifically to be 
used in documentation available.

In addition to the general issue of not using domain names that could 
someday be allocated for a real purpose, actually "following our own 
rules" increases the perception of professionalism of the work product 
on the part of those who come after. To people with a high level of 
technical sophistication, these are trivial matters. However, we can't 
know the audience down the road, so the more internally consistent the 
products of the IETF process are, the lower the barrier of understanding 
to the real point of a given document.

Doug

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:31:15 -0700 (PDT)

% how did 192.0.2.0/24 become glowing slag?
% 
% randy

because the IANA earmarked it for documentation purposes.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:32:06 -0400

>to foo.x?  how did 192.0.2.0/24 become glowing slag?

If the IESG wants to worry about what names are in the domain name 
examples, go ahead.  I was just throwing out some reasons why I think 
that time is better spent on other issues.

The reason I stick to "example.com." or "example." is that if I were 
to say, use "slashdot.net." in an RFC, I might be slashdot-ting them. 
I try to stick to examples that, if abused, hurt only me and not an 
innocent bystander.

I, for one, am not concerned about an RFC inducing folks to hit the 
root servers with bogus domain names.  Popular commercial code is 
more efficient at doing this than the RFCs.

I will abide by using "example." because I think it is wise to use 
safe examples.  But, since you asked, I would say that the time 
commitment to strictly enforce this is time that is in the 
'diminishing returns' category.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:33:53 -0700

>> how did 192.0.2.0/24 become glowing slag?

that was long after.  it was in sunos docs and people actually used it,
cut and paste.  thus it became useless.  so folk asked sri to slag it.

randy

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:38:21 -0700 (PDT)

% >> how did 192.0.2.0/24 become glowing slag?
% > because the IANA earmarked it for documentation purposes.
% 
% that was long after.  it was in sunos docs and people actually used it,
% cut and paste.  thus it became useless.  so folk asked sri to slag it.
% 
% randy

You are thinking of 192.2.200.0/24  not 192.0.2.0/24

--bill

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:41:07 -0700

> You are thinking of 192.2.200.0/24  not 192.0.2.0/24

could be.  long day.  sorry.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:00:28 -0700

> In a related category, but not DNSop specific, the IESG should enforce
> the usage of documentation prefixes, such as the one recently reserved
> by APNIC for IPv6. There is little value to enforcing one without the 
> other...

i don't think this is the place for general id nits discussion.  too much
noise and most interested parties not here.

i asked dnsop specifically to learn of any technical ops issues.  and i
really meant the question.  are there technical ops issues?

randy

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:25:11 -0400

2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples

	.{test,example,invalid,localhost}

Useful for private roots and partitioned nets that will heal w/o collision?
Yes.

Useful for discussing IANA (iso3166) or ICANN ({g,s}TLD) registries?
No.

Personal preference: .tld

3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names

	example.{com,net,org}

Useful for discussing SLDs and registries other-than above?
Yes.

Verisign (and now PIR) -centric?
Yes.

Useful for discussing corporate and publid registries with polices unlike
the CNO model?
No.

Personal use (draft-brunner-epp-smtp-nn.txt):
.nld (somewhere in the delegation-chain, probably not holland)
.tld (top of the delegation-chain (minus rhs "."))
e.g., [email-masked]

Other use (provreg mailing list):
sld.tld, (somewhere specific in the delegation-chain)

I agree with Ed, there are more serious problems.

Eric

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:36:31 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Randy" == Randy Bush <[email-masked]> writes:
    Randy> people cut and paste from examples.  what if queries are generated
    Randy> to foo.x?  how did 192.0.2.0/24 become glowing slag?

  Are you saying that 192.0.2.0/24 got screwed by documents?

  I thought that it was Sun that screwed that up by making zillions
of workstations in the 1980s with 192.0.1.1 as their first IP and
192.0.2.1 as the IP for their second ethernet card.

  Anyway, I was looking the document that sets 192.0.2.0/24 aside for
examples, I couldn't find it. I was also looking for an IPv6 equivalent.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:57:43 -0700

> rfc 2606.  the opinion of dnsop is solicited.  thanks.

It would be great!

	 -  Alain.

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:40:31 -0700

From a technical perspective, it would make sense to use the 
documentation set-asides as specified.

However, as I indicated, I agree with Ed in that there appear to be 
plenty of other things that cause constipation within the IESG without 
adding requirements for ultimately futile attempts at protecting people 
from themselves to the list.  However, this is decidedly non-technical.

---

From: Brad Knowles <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 01:54:51 +0200

>  really meant the question.  are there technical ops issues?

	No, I don't think there are any technical ops issues.  Indeed, I 
think we probably have fairly broad consensus that, on purely 
technical grounds, we should definitely be doing the sort of things 
recommended by the referenced RFCs.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <[email-masked]>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:25:09 -0400 (EDT)

I wouldn't have bothered writing and pushing through the RFC if I didn't
think it was reasonably important. Using real existing domain names can
lead to operational problems such a denial of service, if some test or
example is buggy and runs on the real internet and it may also lead to
legal liability if it somehow interferes with a company's operations or
is considered to dilute their trade mark.

Of course, there are rare cases, usually in DNS related documents, where
you need a country code example or something, in which case you just do
the best you can. (Earlier drafts of the document reserved one of the
"local use" country codes that ISO says it will never assign to a
country but Postel nixed all but the four TLDs listed in the RFC.)

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:35:13 -0700
> From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
> To: dns op wg <[email-masked]>
> Subject: example.com
>