Re: [SPAM] Re: Last Call: draft-iana-ipv4-examples (IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation) to Informational RFC

[Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>]

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