John Levine wrote:
standardizing them and formally recommending their use
I'm not aware of any language in the current draft that recommends
that people use DNSBLs.
Standardizing it is an implicit recommendation. In particular it's a
statement that there are "no known technical omissions" about the
protocol. Which is not an accurate description of the protocol at hand.
What it does say is that if you use or
publish DNSBLs, here's how they work so you can, you know,
interoperate and all that. As I'm sure everyone is aware, there are
large numbers of independently written implementations, both
publishers and users of DNSBLs, so they seem ripe to me for
standardization.
So there's a clear justification for an Informational document
describing current practice - and also what's wrong with it.
Widespread deployment is not a justification for standardization.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf