On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 20:33 +0100, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
Our Systems -> Our rules.
And that, Claus, is the nub of this discussion, as enlightening as it
is.
BCP38 is a very well established BCP document for network operations. It
is ignored by many, either because they choose to or are unaware of the
existence of it.
It strikes me that the consensus here is that MUST NOT is the current
BCP, and you're choosing to do something different. That's your choice;
it does not make your choice a BCP.
I have neither run, nor ever want to run, a DNSBL - but I have made
informed choices over many clauses in BCPs, guidance notes,
interoperability specs and so on over the years. That did not make my
choices the BCP, it made them my choice.
Your network, your rules. That's very important - and it's why BCP
documents don't mandate standards like Standards documents do.
Personally I believe the "offending" clause COULD be rewritten to make
it a little less "offensive". But I do not believe that it MUST be.
Graeme
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg