[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Tue, 27 September 2011 16:30 UTC
From: "dhc at dcrocker.net"
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:30:56 -0700
Subject: [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
In-Reply-To: <20110927144502.3443.46236.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20110927144502.3443.46236.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <4E81FA40.4000406@dcrocker.net>
Folks, This note raises an interesting cross-stream issue. The IESG is being entirely polite and formally appropriate, IMO, but I think the issue they raise is fundamental. While streams do need reasonable independence from each other -- I'm relatively less worried about "end run" efforts to bypass the standards process than most folks seem to be -- I do think that RFCs from non-IETF tracks need to be particularly careful to avoid language and labels that create confusion with our actual standards process. As such, I think that non-IETF streams MUST NOT: 1. Claim to follow RFC 2026 (The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3) 2. Claim to conform to RFC 2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels) 3. Have a title that asserts that the document is a standard or BCP Thoughts? d/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:45:02 -0700 From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> To: irsg at irtf.org CC: johnl at iecc.com, iana at iana.org, The IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, ietf-announce at ietf.org The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Overview of Email DNSBL Best Practise' <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG wants to make the IRSG aware of its concern that there is a potential for confusion between the IETF "Best Current Practice" (BCP) series and the use of the term "Best Practise" in the title and the abstract as well as the use of the acronym "BCP" in the page header of each page and in sections 1.2 and 3.6. Anything that the IRSG can do to avoid this confusion would be appreciated. The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in the datatracker (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists/) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary Technical Summary The rise of spam and other anti-social behavior on the Internet has led to the creation of shared DNS-based lists ("DNSBLs") of IP addresses or domain names intended to help guide email filtering. This memo summarizes guidelines of accepted best practise for the management of public DNSBLs by their operators as well as for the proper use of such lists by mail server administrators (DNSBL users), and it provides useful background for both parties. It is not intended to advise on the utility or efficacy of particular DNSBLs or the DNSBL concept in general, nor to assist end users with questions about spam. Working Group Summary This document is a product of the Anti-Spam Research Group and represents the consensus of that group. Document Quality This document is a research publication of the IRTF. Personnel Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com> is the responsible Area Director. IESG Note The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the MARF WG and the as-yet-unchartered REPUTE BOF, but this relationship does not prevent publishing. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Dave CROCKER
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Joe Touch
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Dave CROCKER
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Joe Touch
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… SM
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… John Levine
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Bob Hinden
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Ross Callon
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… John Levine
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Joe Touch
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… SM
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Brian E Carpenter
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Dave Thaler
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Frank Ellermann
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Frank Ellermann
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-… Olaf Kolkman
- [rfc-i] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <d… Scott O Bradner