Question about 223/8

<insert commentary about fictional technical reason for reservation

Maybe that's why 223.255.255/24 should be forever reserved.

Thankfully, there is no technical reason for a reservation of Idiotic people and equipment will crop up
all over the address space, and we don't reserve that either.

--Michael Dillon

As the one who originally brought this up in nanog, the sole reason
why the conversation came up was documentation.
The last known RFC on the matter stated that was
reserved but that it MAY be allocated in the future.

The part that was ambiguous to APNIC and the network community was
what status was in. It could be inferred by IANA's
allocation, that it was no longer reserved (in which case the RFC should
be updated to reflect that it USED to be reserved), or equally could be
inferred that APNIC was provided 223/8 -, since the
last known statement on the matter still said it is presently reserved.

Let's not confuse people with made up technical reasons for the
reservation. The issue is solely a documentation/ambiguity problem.