John Levine wrote:
The IESG has expressed interest in my dnsbl draft turning
into a standards track RFC rather than informational.
Good...
Take a look, tell us if I got anything seriously wrong.
...skipping typos and editorial nits reported separately ::2
is interesting, as I didn't know it. My intuitive idea for
an IPv6 test address would have been ::FFFF:127.0.0.2 based
on the IPv4 test address. Never listing ::1 is clear, same
idea as for 127.0.0.1. WTH is ::FFFF:127.0.0.2 in a DNSBL ?
0.0.0.2.0.0.F.7.F.F.F.F.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
Well, nobody said that IPv6 DNSBLs are pretty.
http://www.taugh.com/dnsbl
A diff to -05 is still readable, <http://tinyurl.com/6budf7>
Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg