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
