The reason that RFC 2606 was made a BCP was that, at the time, it was felt that a document with that level or approval was needed to reserve domain names in the global Internet. Alternatively, it could have been done with a standards track document, but that seemed inappropriate.
As has been stated, there is nothing in RFC 2606 constraining IETF documents. Donald Author of RFC 2602 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Elz Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:02 +0100 From: "Debbie Garside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | I would also add that to go against an IETF BCP Huh? The BCP in question says (in a bit more eloquent form) "Here are some domain names that are reserved from all normal use, and so are suitable for use in places where something with the syntax of a valid domain names is required, but no real domain name should be used - use them where applicable". It does not say "you must use these domain names" (for any purpose at all). Where's the "go against an IETF BCP" here? kre _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
