My (apparently incorrect) reading of the accountability passage was
that it was intended to impact legal blame assignment, rather than to
rant about human nature. (BCP for humanity: Humans SHOULD NOT behave
as idiots)
Are there any liability lawyers reading this? Perhaps one might comment.
Here's a draft restatement, burying the implied accusation of idiocy
under a better-specified countermanded example:
Users of a DNSBL MUST understand the intention and recommended use(s)
of a DNSBL before using it. Providers of a DNSBL MAY refuse to expend
effort in support of unintended uses of their service. Users SHOULD
NOT expect providers to expend effort supporting use of their service
beyond its purpose as intended by the providers.
Adding a dimension (in this case user/provider) to a linear narrative
is usually implied at a fine grain. In reference manuals, such as
HOWTO documents, the redundancy of content is acceptable because of
the differing needs of the roles of the audiences. The proposed
document has at least two intended audiences, the user role and the
provider role. The addition of an index of required reading for users
and required reading for providers would I think satisfy the objection
about the interspersal, as long as user/provider roles are explicit at
all points.
section: This document is required reading for users of DNSBLs
users of DNSBLs MUST be familiar with the recommendations in section x, y,z
users of DNSBLs MAY become familar with the provider-specific sections
section: This document is required reading for providers of DNSBLs
providers of DNSBLs MUST be familiar with the r13s in section x,w,v
providers of DNSBLs SHOULD also be familar with the user-specific sections
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg