Chris Lewis wrote:
We had a "bit" of legal maunderings in the DNSBL BCP (which I think is
the "not yet seen" document you were referring to), and we took it all
out for those reasons.
In the BCP
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-04), we say:
Aha, there it is! Thank you for the pointer.
[...] We assert that
DNSBL operators are free to choose whatever listing criteria they
wish, as long as those criteria are clearly and accurately
communicated.
Taken within context of the rest of the document, the implicit "take
away" should be that any listing criteria is legitimate, as long as
they're clearly/accurately communicated, and it's the responsibility of
the user to choose the one that fits their requirements. Without
rubbing it in lawyer/judge faces.
Such affirmations still require an endorsement more binding than the
regular standardization process, before they can be taken for granted.
Perhaps governments should explicitly ratify STD documents?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg