Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 08 November 2008 20:16 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 169E93A697F; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:16:25 -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 9A1873A697F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:16:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
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 TAp6aqiWwBnH for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBF33A67AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 12:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.152] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mA8KGCQf077772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 13:16:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624080ec53ba13c2b42@[10.20.30.152]>
In-Reply-To: <4915ED75.9000509@network-heretics.com>
References: <20081108184543.26372.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4915ED75.9000509@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:16:10 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (DNS Blacklists and Whitelists)
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Sometimes, people say "this shouldn't even be an Informational RFC because people can't tell the difference between the types of RFCs and they'll think the IETF supports the technology".

Sometimes, people say "this shouldn't be a standards-track RFC but it is OK for it to be an Informational RFC because people notice the difference and think the difference is important".

Sometimes, those are the same people talking about different documents.

The IETF has repeatedly tried and failed to fix the "RFC levels" problem. It is absurd to have the debate repeatedly and try to hold documents to one temporary belief or the other. Unless we fix the RFC levels problem, we can only rely on the content of the document itself.

To my reading, this document does not promote the use of blacklists, much less of crappy blacklists (of which I am an erroneous target). The text seems to be all about bits-on-the-wire interoperability that affects large and small ISPs.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf