That's a rather narrow view. Very large numbers of people think that
Instant Messaging is a far superior alternative to DNSBLs, not to
mention VoIP, web forums and other variations on the theme.
I can certainly believe that there are people who think that, but if
those very large numbers of people aren't even aware that IM, VoIP,
and web forums also use DNSBLs and DNSWLs to manage their abuse
problems, it's hard to see how their impressions would be helpful
I think it is a positive thing to document the technology of DNSBLs
but I have no idea why this has come to the IETF.
As I said a few messages up in this string, although the structure of
IPv4 DNSxLs has long since been cast in concrete, IPv6 DNSxLs aren't
that mature yet and one of my goals was to make them interoperate
equally well so, for example, if you find you're using cruddy ones you
can easily switch to better ones.
Ietf mailing list