Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Speaking as a DNSBL operator it'd be easier if the BCP were set up such
that we can follow it rather than having to explain to each and every
twit who wants to play lawyer why we don't follow it. If this is to be
a set of best common practices lets ensure people can use them. (this
really should go without saying)
I think that "best current practice" should be exactly that: *Best*
current practice, not the lowest common denominator. It is expected that
some or even many will have to change their operation if they want to
conform to BCP, and some may find it unfeasible or not worth the
trouble.
"Best current practice" implies that someone is _currently_ running
their foo in the manner bar described by the BCP. I don't know that
there's a significant difference between a lowest common denominator
solution for the first public revision of the document. I don't think
any of us are going anywhere, and as awareness and compliance with the
first version of this document becomes a reality, we can talk about
expanding it.
I think the question this document needs to answer is "What do I as a
DNSBL maintainer have to do to publish valid information?", and possibly
"what do I as an end user/abuse role/network role need to provide and
expect of a DNSBL maintainer". If the lowest common denominator is
ensuring my list has valid information (as what we're trying to avoid,
of course, is invalid information) then I think we'll do fine even with
the first draft, although I am in this for the long haul and will always
be looking to make the standards better, I just want to start on common
ground, otherwise we'll have adoption problems.
Andrew
(once the gods built a perfect society, they never let the humans in.
It remains, to this day, perfect)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg