Frank Ellermann wrote:
Chris Lewis wrote:
It may or may not be their right to express that opinion --
I think it is, but I'm not an attorney even in *this*
country. I think it's overbroad to state a global legal
opinion.
Perhaps it should be toned down, but I think it still
needs to be said somehow. You don't have to be a lawyer
to express an opinion about the law.
The problem is not the opinion expressed in the list. The
problem is to write "their absolute right" in a BCP when
you are no lawyer. Some bad ideas published as list could
be illegal where I live.
I'll fix the other place where it says legal/law.
The document uses "DNSBL" thruout to handle DNS-query-based
lists, and explicitly calls out both domains/IPs, and is
inclusive of SURBLs too. I think adding RHSBL/SURBL/URIBL
etc will only make the document way more opaque than it
needs to be and is unnecessary.
Using 127.0.0.2 as always listed test entry is unfortunately
no common practice in RHSBLs I know. It's also not obvious
that this should be no technical problem. SURBL is no pure
RHSBL, it covers also IPs. RFCI is a pure RHSBL today, it
doesn't list 127.0.0.2. If you think that's not the "b" in
"best" you have to say that RHSBLs have no technical reason
to use say example.tld instead of 127.0.0.2. I didn't check
if the draft already does this.
Is there a testing convention for RHSBLs currently in use? RHSBLs
_could_ still use the 127.0.0.2 convention just like DNSBLs do, there's
really nothing preventing it. Other than deciding whether the octets
should be reversed or not.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg