Subject: Re: [yam] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:09 -0800

Hi Joel,

Thank you for your review.

At 09:58 28-02-10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>Comment: I presume the use of domain names that are not formal 
>examples (are not compliant with 2606) is done in order to reduce 
>gratuitous changes from RFC 1652, which used the same domains names 
>for examples which are used here.

Yes, this is to avoid gratuitous changes when advancing the 
specification from Draft Standard to Full Standard.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy