Re: [Asrg] IP responsibility --slightly out of scope

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> I think those concepts should be clarified, referencing the
>> relevant RFC where apropriate
> 
> Post numbers, please.  I'd know where to find the MTAMARK draft,
> unfortunately that never made it.  The reverse lookup draft is
> just in WGLC and should be available if needed as reference.

I guess you mean draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.
It has a number of interesting consideration w.r.t. DNSBLs, as it also 
considers anti-spam as a topic. Specifically, in-addr.arpa could be 
considered a DNSWL in its own right.

The other relevant topic is [r]whois maintenance. I'm not an RFC 
connoisseur, and I'm quite lost here. The specs, e.g. rfc1714 or 
rfc3912, limit themselves with protocol specification, even if they 
suggest that tracking IP assignment is the intended usage. Rfc2050 
mentions a database that is maintained by adding reassignment 
information, but doesn't say if and how it is published. Perhaps, 
there is room enough in the DNSBL BCP to informally suggest that 
published information about IP assignments _is_ available, and that 
the point of contact mentioned there is responsible for referring to 
the final user of a given number. Policies and obligations for 
actually providing such reference obviously vary.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg