--On Thursday, 13 November, 2008 18:01 +0000 Tony Finch
<dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, John C Klensin wrote:
If there were a BCP on the table that would permit us to talk
about DNSRBLs that conform and those that don't, rather than
about subjective opinions of "behaving badly", we would, IMO,
be having a rather different discussion.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blackl
ists-04.txt
Sorry, Tony, I'm aware of the existence of that draft.
Procedurally, it takes us back to exactly the problem I'm trying
to identify, quite independent of the substance of the DNSBL
debate.
That document is under consideration in an RG. As far as I
know, there has been no assertion of RG consensus (whatever that
might mean). If I recall, one of the authors even indicated
that it needed to be revised further. It is not a WG product
that was authorized in the WG's charter. I don't believe that
anyone has asked that it be standardized (or published as a
BCP). Certainly no IETF Last Call has been issued.
And that is exactly the point I was making -- with a WG, we have
the opportunity, at charter time, to discuss the complex of
documents that are needed and even to make decisions about what
should be considered first. ADs get to look at the entire set
of proposed WG documents and make decisions (subject to
discussion and appeal if needed) about what documents should be
considered by the IETF together or in a specific order.
Here we are being asked to standardize a set of data formats
without the BCP and framework documents that make that
consideration meaningful and, as others have pointed out,
without documentation of consequences, risks, and relationships
that belongs somewhere in a set of documents. I don't know if
those appear in adequate form elsewhere in the set, but I do
know that they are not in the document in front of the IETF and
that some of us believe that, without them, the document should
not be approved on the standards track.
And all of that would be true even if more of us were huge fans
of RBLs.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf