IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Fri, 14 November 2008 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7599E28C10D; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:53:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D346128C10D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:53:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hgWaCl04EKK for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3718D28C103 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6AEA94442; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:53:32 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <0B228DDE-FEB2-4316-9AB1-084658945FC6@mail-abuse.org>
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <p0624060ac5439e6498c7@[10.227.68.106]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:53:31 -0800
References: <20081114130618.62196.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <p06240601c543670ca045@[10.227.68.106]> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0811141850140.95525@simone.iecc.com> <p0624060ac5439e6498c7@[10.227.68.106]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Nov 14, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> If we are documenting practice and nothing more, then the  
> publication stream can move to informational and text can be added  
> on why a new RR, which would normally be expected here, is not being  
> used (essentially, inertia in the face of 15 years deployment).   
> That may be a valuable use of an RFC; documenting the way things  
> really work often is.  But it shouldn't go onto the standards track,  
> as there is a known technical deficiency.

Agreed.

-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email