On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Chris Lewis wrote:
On 1/18/2011 3:45 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Douglas Otis<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
On 1/18/11 7:46 AM, John Levine wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists/
C. This draft continues the delusion of IP address listings for IPv6.
An important feature of IPv6 is the ability to rapidly renumber. Any
scheme that attempts to apply policy against IPv6 addresses removes this
important feature.
I'm afraid Doug is a bit in the rough here: most of us seem hell-bent
on _making_ IPv6 DNSBLs work.
(I do, however, share Doug's doubt that we'll succeed.)
This draft should caution against assumptions that suggest IPv4
practices can be extended for use with IPv6!
+1
(I didn't stumble upon any exactly contrary statement; but I think we
need an explicit explanation that IPv6 DNSBLs are a work-in-progress at
best, and this documents cannot make recommendations specific to IPv6.)
IPv6 is mentioned only once, in Section 3.5, and not in a way that
suggests DNSBLs for IPv6 are appropriate or practical. The document covers
whitelists as well as blacklists, and it is not unreasonable to suppose
that a whitelist could exist for IPv6 mail hosts. While I might prefer a
vigourous denunciation of IPv6 blacklists, there isn't anything really
objectionable in the draft on this topic.
Daniel Feenberg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg