Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:18:21PM -0000,
John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote
All of these questions have come up before on the various lists
where this draft was developed, but I suppose it's worth going
through
That's the point of an IETF-Wide Last Call. I'm not a participant in
the ASRG.
Stephane,
Your view of the role of IETF Last Call does not match my reading of RFC 2418,
"IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedure":
Last-Call is intended as a brief, final check with the
Internet community, to make sure that no important concerns have been
missed or misunderstood. The Last-Call should not serve as a more
general, in-depth review.
You seem to be calling for an in-depth review.
Last Call gives the community a chance to actively put forward concerns, not to
passively wait and require a detailed exposition by the working group. You note
that you were not a participant. Yet that is exactly how someone who is
concerned about the detailed history is supposed to obtain information about the
detailed process (and affect its outcome.)
Sometimes, specification do contain rationales. This is one of the things that
distinguishes IETF specifications from most other standards groups. But there
is no requirement for this in IETF documents. They are specifications, not
tutorials.
Incidentally, although it may still be the conventional wisdom in the
IETF that DNSBLs don't work and aren't useful,
No, it's just experience. The last funny case is inside France Telecom
(French largest ISP) where one mail server refused another one because
it was blacklisted :-)
That's a problem with administration and operation, not with specification of
the format.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf