On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 2/27/2011 7:57 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote:
Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7
coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is arguing
for that as a standard.
That's fine, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language like
"MUST NOT"
Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP document is
required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" and describe it as
such[1].
"MUST NOT" is absolutely an acceptable term for a BCP document to use to say
that a behaviour is clearly outside "best practice".
Cheers,
Steve
[1] Heck, I respond with public ridicule and spite listings to people who
complain about being wrongly listed on one of my blacklists[2]. Also to users
of the list who contact me when it fails to meet their expectations. I'm
perfectly happy with that behavior to be covered by a "MUST NOT" in a blacklist
BCP.
[2] It's the all-of-ipv4-bl, admittedly, but that's still a blacklist, just as
useful and valid as UCEPROTECT when it comes to constraining BCP language.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg