On Mar 29, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
This draft can not be considered a Best Current Practice for
operating black-hole lists
Black hole is a very specific technical term in this context,
relating to packet routing. Is that what you mean?
From a legal perspective "black list" is a technical term that does
not apply to black-hole lists or block-lists. The term "black list"
in this draft may unnecessarily obligate a black-hole or block-list
operator to clarify the difference in possible litigation. The
RBL(tM) (real-time black-hole list) information ultimately pertains to
the reputation of the network provider. Blocking or black-holing
should be contained within the provider's advertised space. Properly
establishing this containment and identifying the provider is critical
for any block/black-hole list operator. This aspect of block/black-
hole listing is currently missing from the draft.
The block/black-hole listing information is currently distributed in
several forms, such as BGP, DNS, or data transfers of various types.
When published using BGP, this information can safely can be called
black-hole listing in the classic sense. When published using DNS,
most MTAs return an error code, where this might be better described
as block-listing, or perhaps even conduct-listing, because blocking
may not be the result of the listing. A term that should not be used,
to avoid confusion with legal definitions, would be black-listing.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg