In message <52E54202.6030002@gmail.com>, at 18:12:34 on Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Pier Carlo Chiodi <pc.chiodi@gmail.com> writes
the paper should positively avoid the inclusion of confusing examples such as domains operated by I* entities.
Within the document I used the example.com domain just to give readers a name which was "neutral" and easy to remember;
I understand both of those criteria, but it's not a suitable one to use for the reasons I've given.
my intention was not to use the example.com "technical background" such as the real NSs operated by IANA.
Except your diagrams quote "a.iana-servers.net" as the NS, which is where the potential for great confusion kicks in.
Anyway if you believe that it could confuse more expert readers
No, it confuses the inexpert readers (who ought to be our primary audience - the experts know most of what's in the paper already).
it can be replaced with another, as suggested by Roland. In this case maybe it could be useful to find as many sample domains as the cases covered by the document, each domain reflecting the specific technical configuration each time described. My only fear is that this may lead to a more difficult reading for non-expert people (who are the real audience).
I think a suitably-chosen example would be much less difficult for the non-experts (they won't go away with the impression that IANA runs everyone's NS). Choosing an example isn't easy (if it was, I'd have suggested one already). In a perfect world we'd have Ripe-NCC set up a dedicated one with the desired characteristics for us. (Something like target-domain.org, with three NS in different parts of the world, none of them on I* networks.) -- Roland Perry