The fact that [DNSBLs] are widely used is sad, not a justification
for standardization.
True. The justification is not simply that they are widely used; it
is that they are widely used, they are often done wrong, they are of
tremendous value when done right, and of actively negative value
when done wrong.
I agree that this might be a justification for standardizing some
sort of reputation protocol. But it's not at all clear the document
at hand describes [...]
Perhaps. But this is not a place where the IETF gets to choose what
will be used. DNSLs are in live use, have been for years, and will
continue to be; the IETF can jump up and down all it wants, but that
isn't going to change - the question is whether people will use DNSLs
with an IETF standard or without one, not whether people will use
DNSBLs or something else the IETF likes more. (In principle it's
possible people might switch to something better. But I sure don't see
any such "something better" even on the horizon, much less in even
experimental use - and even if one appears, the adoption time is going
to be measured in years. DNSLs will be here for a long time to come.)
What the IETF _does_ have a chance to do here is to improve the quality
of a critical piece of Internet infrastructure (email without DNSLs in
today's net is either unusable or very heavily balkanized) by
standardizing those aspects that are in shape to be standardized. The
IETF says "rough consensus and running code". We have the running
code. We even have something close to rough consensus in the field, in
the form of the many DNSL providers and users; I hope the IETF can
recognize that consensus and echo it enough to do what it can to help.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(_at_)rodents-montreal(_dot_)org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf